Another EENS, please be patient...
But weren't the Sacraments created for our benefit?  Weren't they established as a visible means of some assurance of God's grace?  I fully understand why we are bound to their forms, but I don't think it follows that God is.
Reply
God is by the fact that he established them in the context of a covenant. God does not have the habit of breaking his covenants. DId he have "Circumcision of desire" for the gentiles? Now, you were either a Jew, or not. No halfway. Did he create a middle religion that undermined the need for the mosaic law and the ceremonies He established and HE gave to israel? No, he did not. Did he establish any other kingship than the davidic kingdom, which is fulfilled in the person of Christ, the king? No, he did not.

Likewise, when he established the circumstances, he bound himself to uphold their efficacy and their necessity, because HE SAYS they are necessary. GOd cannot, and does not change. THerefore, GOd cannot short-circuit the means HE ESTABLISHED for salvation. And to believe he does is to not take God and his actions throughout salvation history seriously. Look at what he has done in the past: It is the same as what he does today. THe new covenant is a new COVENANT. And a covenant is a swearing of an oath, and GOD BINDS HIMSELF to the oaths he swears:

"He swore to Abraham and to his seed forever..."
"Since there was no one higher to swear by, he swore by himself..."

God does not revoke what he establishes: He upholds it eternally. THe Sacraments are part of the new covenant, therefore they cannot be circumvented or done away with for any reason, because HE MADE THEM necessary. ANd he cared enough about them to grant them their efficacy by his death (THe sacraments efficacy flows out of the death of Christ).

If he cared enough about what he established to die for its institution, maybe he takes a little bit seriously, and not so laxadasically as most of our liberal and moder theologians do (i.e Karl Rahner)
Reply
Quote: Theologians differ on that.  There is human faith and divine faith.  Aquinas and Bonaventure say divine faith comes at the same time as perfect charity.  Suarez says it comes before charity in the process of justification.  Human faith is not one of the theological virtues. 

I agree with Aquinas on this, for what it is worth.
Reply
(05-30-2011, 01:53 PM)Gregory I Wrote: God is by the fact that he established them in the context of a covenant. God does not have the habit of breaking his covenants. DId he have "Circumcision of desire" for the gentiles? Now, you were either a Jew, or not. No halfway. Did he create a middle religion that undermined the need for the mosaic law and the ceremonies He established and HE gave to israel? No, he did not. Did he establish any other kingship than the davidic kingdom, which is fulfilled in the person of Christ, the king? No, he did not.

Likewise, when he established the circumstances, he bound himself to uphold their efficacy and their necessity, because HE SAYS they are necessary. GOd cannot, and does not change. THerefore, GOd cannot short-circuit the means HE ESTABLISHED for salvation. And to believe he does is to not take God and his actions throughout salvation history seriously. Look at what he has done in the past: It is the same as what he does today. THe new covenant is a new COVENANT. And a covenant is a swearing of an oath, and GOD BINDS HIMSELF to the oaths he swears:

"He swore to Abraham and to his seed forever..."
"Since there was no one higher to swear by, he swore by himself..."

God is not the problem.  The problem is human. Study all the invalidating changes brought  about in the Roman Ritual by Paul VI. 

God does not revoke what he establishes: He upholds it eternally. THe Sacraments are part of the new covenant, therefore they cannot be circumvented or done away with for any reason, because HE MADE THEM necessary. ANd he cared enough about them to grant them their efficacy by his death (THe sacraments efficacy flows out of the death of Christ).

If he cared enough about what he established to die for its institution, maybe he takes a little bit seriously, and not so laxadasically as most of our liberal and moder theologians do (i.e Karl Rahner)
Reply
Why are you quoting me with that text in there about paul VI?  :pazzo:

I never said that. Are you tampering my quotes? ;D
Reply
(05-30-2011, 10:09 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Why are you quoting me with that text in there about paul VI?  :pazzo:

I never said that. Are you tampering my quotes? ;D

@ Gregory I  :pazzo:

God kept His Covenant as long as the Church administered sacraments accoring to rituaL TRADITION.  When Paul VI introduced a new Ritual for the administration of sacraments, because of the changes these became invalid.  So God did not fail.  It Was Pope Paul VI and his followers who failed to uphold the Catholic Covenant according to Tradition.
Reply
That is completely immaterial to what I am saying.

I am saying that BOD is not compatible with a God who keeps the covenants he makes. It is theological speculation. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but by me" did he make any exceptions? No, the need to go through Christ is absolute. When he said that a man must be "born of water and the spirit, else he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" did he admit for exceptions there? no.

He payed out his own blood on the wood of the cross so that these sacraments might be efficacious, for "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Therefore the sacraments are part and parcel of the new covenant written in the blood of Christ, and as such they are neither subject to change, nor can the be discounted and treated as necessary in only certain circumstances. And since God does NOT change, the way he acts in the past indicates how he acts in the present: He will not revoke any part of his covenant with man, and the sacrament of baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation.

As it is taught in the ordinary magisterium by Pope Pius XII "Actually, the sole way one is to be made a member of the church is through baptism." There is no speculative virtual membership, i.e. belonging to the "soul" of the church and not the body:

The Mystical body of Christ is the Roman Catholic church. You cannot belong to one without belonging to the other without denying the words of Christ and the teaching of the church.

What we have today are ecclesiastical Nestorians: Theologians who say that the Visible Church is one thing, and the invisible, mystical body another; and all a man needs to be saved is to belong to the mystical body. False. The Mystical body IS the Roman catholic church, you cannot be in one without being in the other (In a state of justification that is).
Reply
Indeed the Church teaches that no one can be a member of the Church without  the Sacrament of Baptism, baptism by water.  The question is, what possible meaningful relationship can those who are not members have to the Church?

Pope Pius XII says:
"Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis" Wrote:103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. [194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," [195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to [u]withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. [196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. [/u]Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. [197]
Why did the Pope say that non-members should withdraw from that state in which they are not sure of their salvation? In other words,  WHILE THEY ARE NON-MEMBERS they cannot be sure of their salvation?  What does he not say  "they are sure of their damnation", perhaps adding "unless they become members at the end"?  I think it is because Pope Pius XII agreed with Pope Pius IX  (as one good Pope does with another):

"Pope Pius IX Quanto Conficiamur Moerore" Wrote:7. 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. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

I suspect that the answer will be given something like "I admire Pope Pius IX but about this he is just plain wrong".  I'm sorry but to me that is a just  plain foolish thought.

ALL divine grace is Catholic and comes through Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body.  If He chooses to give His grace (as Pope Pius IX says)  to someone who is not a member that person is not ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY TOTALLY AND UTTERLY outside the Church.  He is not a member, but he has (as Pope Pius XII says) a certain relationship with the Church.  He is not automatically damned.  He can not receive the sacraments and it will be very hard for him to reach salvation.  But leave him to Christ, and pray that he becomes a member of the Church.
Reply
OK, so if Pius IX is right, explain to me why original sin ALONE is punished with hell. Original sin is not something you go out and do: You are born with it. Explain to me how the DOGMA of original sin alone being punished in hell is congruent with what bl. Pope Pius IX said.
Reply
(05-31-2011, 09:01 PM)Gregory I Wrote: OK, so if Pius IX is right, explain to me why original sin ALONE is punished with hell. Original sin is not something you go out and do: You are born with it. Explain to me how the DOGMA of original sin alone being punished in hell is congruent with what bl. Pope Pius IX said.

"Dr. Ludwig Ott" Wrote:Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It  [CHRIST] bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

It does not make you a member of the Church.  Christ's command to be baptized by water still applies for the rest of your life until it is done.  Mortal sin is a much bigger danger for non-members, and (of course)  mortal sin always brings eternal punishment if you die with it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)