Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell?
(05-18-2009, 09:56 AM)didishroom Wrote: Quis, I will get back to you later today on the Magisterium. It requires a little more time to respond on such a complex subject.

OK
Reply
(05-18-2009, 09:20 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 08:14 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 02:28 PM)didishroom Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 01:23 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: So you believe, Resurrexi, that the invincibly ignorant can be saved?

The Magisterium of the Church says as much.

It does not. Vatican I delcared Faith is necessary for salvatio. And I believe it was Pope Innocent XI who condemned the idea that a belief in a creator that comes from observing the natural world could suffice for Faith and Salvation.

"Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, yet a necessity lies upon the Church, and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel." (Ad Gentes, 7, emphasis added)

That is what St Thomas and St Alphonsus understand remote grace to be a means of, viz., direct revelation of the Faith (or, more likely, the sending of a missionary); which directly contradicts salvation by/despite invincible ignorance.

Sanctifying grace is infused with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, so one has the Faith when they have sanctifying grace.  God can and does infuse sanctifying grace to people of good will without making use of the sacraments. 
Reply
(05-18-2009, 04:49 PM)PeterII Wrote: Sanctifying grace is infused with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, so one has the Faith when they have sanctifying grace.  God can and does infuse sanctifying grace to people of good will without making use of the sacraments.   

Which, once again, has nothing to do with invincible ignorance.
Reply
(05-18-2009, 05:07 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(05-18-2009, 04:49 PM)PeterII Wrote: Sanctifying grace is infused with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, so one has the Faith when they have sanctifying grace.  God can and does infuse sanctifying grace to people of good will without making use of the sacraments.   

Which, once again, has nothing to do with invincible ignorance.

Yes it does, because people here are trying to argue that you actually need to desire the Sacrament of Baptism to be saved by desire, but that is not so.  An interior disposition to cooperate with God's grace is all that is required, and one does not need particular knowledge to achieve that.      
Reply
Quote:That's absolutely wrong.  For example, in this letter Cdl. Ratzinger refers to the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df95lt.htm

Quote from: Cdl. R
In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25).


As usual I probably phrased it wrong. The Ordinary Magisterium makes up of the worlds' bishops assembled in general council or scattered throughout the world. For a doctrine to be considered infallible it must be "universal".

Vatican I never said how the Ordinary Magisterium could be infallible like it did with the pope and ex cathedra, but Vatican II did:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith
.

So for it to be infallible the OM(Ordinary Magisterium) must be consistent and universal. They must also let it be known that it must be held. We know that many of the bishops are outright heretics while others including the pope make and publish things concerning faith and morals that are dubious at best. What's part of the Magisterium and what isn't?

If you want here's two good articles on the Magisterium:
http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-...ching.html
http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-th...ching.html





Quote:No, it was not.  Theologians were inconsistent, and they do not partake of the Ordinary Magisterium but are witnesses to it.  The Ordinary Magisterium is reserved to the Pope and the Bishops.  It's what they teach, not what the theologians teach that is the criteria for infallibility.
Ok sooooooo, if the OM infallibly taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception before it was defined by the EM in the person of Bl. Pius IX, than why weren't Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairveaux considered formal heretics?



Quote:It does not say were were just vegetative matter.  In fact, not even St. Thomas or St. Augustine said that; neither did Aristotle on whose philosophy St. Thomas' comments are based.  What they say is the rational soul is united after a certain lapse of time (it could be 1ms for all we know).  The animal soul is there immediately.  And you will note the reason given for this: "according to the order of nature" - it is not a teaching of morals and dogma that the rational soul is not united to the body immediately - it is offered on the basis of philosophical supposition, however, it is a teaching of morals and dogma that Christ's rational soul was there immediately.
So are you saying that the declaration that we have a soul after a period of time is not concerned with faith or morals and thus has no bearing on the infallibility of the Magisterium either way?





Quote:Further, you will see that the Ordinary Magisterium in current times has not taught definitively that the rational soul is joined to the body at the moment of conception.

So even if you don't believe me, you have the words of the Church stating that the time of the binding of the rational soul - to anyone except Christ - has not been given by the Magisterium, and the contention in the Roman Catechism that you cite is of a philosophical nature, not one of faith and morals except in the case of Christ.

"The Blessed Virgin in the first instance of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin
"-Bl. Pius IX.
So you say ONLY Christ definitely had a soul at conception, but Pius IX says at least Mary as well.



Quote:From Donum Vitae:

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable
Ok, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this doesn't say anything either way. And Pius IX infallibly declares in opposition to the Roman Catechism that at least one other person had a soul at their conception.




Reply
I don't know why people bring up the Immaculate Conception when talking about ensoulment.  The dogma does not tell us at what point in the fertilisation process we are infused with an immortal soul, nor that only an immortal soul can be stained with Original Sin.   
Reply
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE OF HER CONCEPTION.....You cannot be freed from original sin at conception if you do not have a soul at the moment of conception.
Reply
(05-19-2009, 01:13 AM)didishroom Wrote:
Quote:That's absolutely wrong.  For example, in this letter Cdl. Ratzinger refers to the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df95lt.htm

Quote from: Cdl. R
In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25).


As usual I probably phrased it wrong. The Ordinary Magisterium makes up of the worlds' bishops assembled in general council or scattered throughout the world. For a doctrine to be considered infallible it must be "universal".

True, but the universal qualifier is not "broken" if a single bishop somewhere in time doesn't teach the same thing.

Quote:Vatican I never said how the Ordinary Magisterium could be infallible like it did with the pope and ex cathedra, but Vatican II did:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith
.

Well, it certainly didn't spell it out like V2 does, but note:

Quote:8. Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be
believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture
and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be
believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in
her ordinary and universal magisterium

The ordinary and universal magisterium is listed with all the other infallible organs of the Church: Scripture, Tradition, and the Extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., solemn judgment).  The precedence is there (as well as in many things before V1).  We aren't required to believe fallible things de fide.

Quote:So for it to be infallible the OM(Ordinary Magisterium) must be consistent and universal. They must also let it be known that it must be held. We know that many of the bishops are outright heretics while others including the pope make and publish things concerning faith and morals that are dubious at best. What's part of the Magisterium and what isn't?

What's part of the Magisterium is that which isn't heretical.  The Ordinary Magisterium, universal aspect or no, has to be based on a continual pointing of evidence in a certain direction - that pointing comes from a continual and consistent teaching on faith and morals in the history of the Church.

Quote:
Quote:No, it was not.  Theologians were inconsistent, and they do not partake of the Ordinary Magisterium but are witnesses to it.  The Ordinary Magisterium is reserved to the Pope and the Bishops.  It's what they teach, not what the theologians teach that is the criteria for infallibility.
Ok sooooooo, if the OM infallibly taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception before it was defined by the EM in the person of Bl. Pius IX, than why weren't Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairveaux considered formal heretics?

Who said the OM infallibly taught the doctrine of the IC?  As you note, the IC was proclaimed by the Extraordinary Magisterium.  And, that goes to the flaw in your argument.  Only the Church determines what is a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and, at the time of St. Thomas, the Church said it was an open question.  That is why he wasn't considered a formal heretic.  One can only be a heretic if one believes other than the Church definitively teaches.

Quote:
Quote:It does not say were were just vegetative matter.  In fact, not even St. Thomas or St. Augustine said that; neither did Aristotle on whose philosophy St. Thomas' comments are based.  What they say is the rational soul is united after a certain lapse of time (it could be 1ms for all we know).  The animal soul is there immediately.  And you will note the reason given for this: "according to the order of nature" - it is not a teaching of morals and dogma that the rational soul is not united to the body immediately - it is offered on the basis of philosophical supposition, however, it is a teaching of morals and dogma that Christ's rational soul was there immediately.
So are you saying that the declaration that we have a soul after a period of time is not concerned with faith or morals and thus has no bearing on the infallibility of the Magisterium either way?

I am saying the Church hasn't made a Magisterial statement on when the rational soul is embodied, and, you will note, that is what the Church says, too.  If the Church does not make a binding statement about something concering faith and morals, that that "something" is open for theological debate, more or less, depending on the degree of theological certainty with which the Church or her theologians has spoken on it.  See my answer to why St. Thomas wasn't burned at the stake and why Pope John sent a letter saying it could be debated.

Quote:
Quote:Further, you will see that the Ordinary Magisterium in current times has not taught definitively that the rational soul is joined to the body at the moment of conception.

So even if you don't believe me, you have the words of the Church stating that the time of the binding of the rational soul - to anyone except Christ - has not been given by the Magisterium, and the contention in the Roman Catechism that you cite is of a philosophical nature, not one of faith and morals except in the case of Christ.

"The Blessed Virgin in the first instance of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin
"-Bl. Pius IX.
So you say ONLY Christ definitely had a soul at conception, but Pius IX says at least Mary as well.

Well, if you want to pick nits, then feel free to correct me, because, yes, pedantically I was wrong.  However, I was talking about in the context of the Roman Catechism which was written before the IC was dogmatic and thus the topic was open to theological debate.

Quote:
Quote:From Donum Vitae:

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable
Ok, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this doesn't say anything either way. And Pius IX infallibly declares in opposition to the Roman Catechism that at least one other person had a soul at their conception.

You are reading it the wrong way, IMO.  Let me try to explain it this way:

The Roman Catechism is only making a definitive statement about when Christ's rational soul was enjoined.  It says nothing Magisterially about anyone else including Mary - what it says about others is based on "natural order" - philosophy - and thus what it says about the general case is fallible. 

Pius IX is only making a definitive statement about Mary.  He is saying nothing Magisterially about Christ or anyone else.

What Donum Vitae is saying, in agreement with the above two, is that the Church has never taught definitively in the general case about when the rational soul is enjoined to the body and has only considered it philosophically. 

So, as of today, we only know infallibly that the rational souls of Christ and Mary were joined at the time of conception.  For everyone else, it's a philosophical question and open to theological debate.  In fact, AFAIK, and I could be wrong, we don't know that original sin is tied to the rational soul - it could be to the animal soul.  In which case, it could still be Christ alone who had His rational soul enjoined at the moment of conception because Mary could still be immaculately conceived if her animal soul was joined at the moment of conception (and that is the philosophical argument, etc.) and the animal soul is the one that carries the stain of original sin.  Again, I could be wrong and it could be defined that the rational soul is the one that carries the stain of original sin, but if not, then what I said is possible.

The point is that because the Church makes a definitive statement about one thing it doesn't necessarily apply to everything possibly related to it.  Your mistake, in my mind, is saying that in the Roman Catechism the Church Magisterially said that the rational soul is not enjoined until later.  It did not, it only stated that philosophically, and that is why Donum Vitae restates that fact.
Reply
(05-19-2009, 01:56 AM)didishroom Wrote: IN THE FIRST INSTANCE OF HER CONCEPTION.....You cannot be freed from original sin at conception if you do not have a soul at the moment of conception.

Actually, I was curious about this and not sure at all, so I looked it up in the Summa.  St. Thomas seems to say the mechanism by which original sin is transmitted to the soul is through the flesh:

Quote:Reply to Objection 4. The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused.

And

Quote:Reply to Objection 2. Original sin spreads in two ways; from the flesh to the soul, and from the essence of the soul to the powers. The former follows the order of generation, the latter follows the order of perfection. Therefore, although the other, viz. the sensitive powers, are more akin to the flesh, yet, since the will, being the higher power, is more akin to the essence of the soul, the infection of original sin reaches it first.

So, if that is correct, and Original Sin is comes from the flesh to the soul, then Mary's flesh could have been Immaculately Conceived before her rational soul was infused, and thus did not corrupt her rational soul when it arrived.

The reality is, as far as I can find, the Church hasn't officially defined how exactly Original Sin is transmitted.  So who knows? :shrug:

Reply
From post #117

Quote:
Quote:
”Cdl. R” Wrote:In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25).

As usual I probably phrased it wrong. The Ordinary Magisterium makes up of the worlds' bishops assembled in general council or scattered throughout the world. For a doctrine to be considered infallible it must be "universal".


True, but the universal qualifier is not "broken" if a single bishop somewhere in time doesn't teach the same thing.

Yes, the "universal" here is a moral unanimity, not an absolute or mathematical unanimity.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)