God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
QuisUtDeus Wrote:You're being obstinate on purpose now.

You're judging the internal forum. ;)

Quote:If Ott and the CE say we can (and in some cases should) believe things given by a consensus of theologians, does that not create a moral certitude by definition?

QuisUtDeus Wrote:So, which was it?  Was there a consensus of theologians or not?  I answered based on your premise that there was a consensus of theologians.

Yes, I believe there was a consensus of dissident theologians (but allowed to remain in good standing by John XXIII & Paul VI) who claimed it was a-ok, in fact the commission of theologians initiated by Paul VI said it was a-ok! Yet the practice, in principle, had always been condemned by Tradition and these priests had no business relying on these theologians when the moral tradition of the Church had forbidden it until then.

Quote:To actually say they did, makes me wonder how important it is to you to "win" this discussion? That assertion is incredible.

You're being objectively dishonest now.  You offered a premise that there was consensus of theologians, and given that premise I answered your question.

As I stated, there was a consensus, but I don't think their consensus was worth a hill of beans. They were full of liberals and they were wrong which is my point.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:You're tearing down how the Church works.  You're distorting and obfuscating the meaning of traditional approaches to theology (the consensus of theologians, Schola Theologica, degrees of theological certainty, etc.) to try to find loopholes as to the meaning of things to come out ahead in some stupid argument.
I'm simply saying that the consensus of theologians does not bind our consciences to a moral certainty and I don't think there is a Magisterial teaching that states this. I think we should consider what they have to say on matters where the Church has not spoken definitively, but in no way do I think we are bound to a moral certainty by those opinions.

Quote:It's not worth it.  I don't want people to go around thinking they don't have to believe things that aren't dogma or that the Schola Theologica has no weight, or that the consensus of theologians is something to throw away and gives us no certainty to our beliefs, or that they have to second-guess everything their priest tells them is OK.
I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying the Magisterium binds to a moral certainty and priests who are in alignment with that are to be believed with moral certainty as well. If people are truly ignorant and they get bad advice from their priest and follow it, of course they are not guilty. As I said before theologians have weight, but do not bind us.

If we, as Catholics, are allowed to believe that God really does deliver damned souls from Hell, this opens up all sorts of implications. For one, Hell is not necessarily eternal and that there is potentially a way out! This is astonishing to me indeed.

Aquinas on the matter:


Quote:If we, as Catholics, are allowed to believe that God really does deliver damned souls from Hell, this opens up all sorts of implications. For one, Hell is not necessarily eternal and that there is potentially a way out! This is astonishing to me indeed.

It doesnt open up any implications. It certainly cant be presumed, even if one privately hopes that it happens in certain cases, so it wouldnt change our behavior one bit.

However, it seems like a rather moot point, as there is no particular reason to have this hope, when one can hope that no soul has actually ever died in mortal sin in the first place. So it seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse, though not in itself heretical (again, consider the story of Gregory and Trajan).

Dante says of Trajan in Paradiso XX:
Quote:For one from Hell, where no one e'er turns back
Unto good will, returned unto his bones,
And that of living hope was the reward,--
Of living hope, that placed its efficacy
In prayers to God made to resuscitate him,
So that 'twere possible to move his will.
The glorious soul concerning which I speak,
Returning to the flesh, where brief its stay,
Believed in Him who had the power to aid it;
And, in believing, kindled to such fire
Of genuine love, that at the second death
Worthy it was to come unto this joy.
The other one, through grace, that from so deep
A fountain wells that never hath the eye
Of any creature reached its primal wave,
Set all his love below on righteousness;
Wherefore from grace to grace did God unclose
His eye to our redemption yet to be,
Whence he believed therein, and suffered not
From that day forth the stench of paganism,
And he reproved therefor the folk perverse.
Those Maidens three, whom at the right-hand wheel
Thou didst behold, were unto him for baptism
More than a thousand years before baptizing.
O thou predestination, how remote
Thy root is from the aspect of all those
Who the First Cause do not behold entire!
And you, O mortals! hold yourselves restrained
In judging; for ourselves, who look on God,
We do not know as yet all the elect;
And sweet to us is such a deprivation,
Because our good in this good is made perfect,
That whatsoe'er God wills, we also will.

Stop trying to compass God. He will do what He wills.
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:Sometimes God is quite compelling for certain people. St Paul, Jonas and others were given not so subtle hints, but I do not think that means there was a violation of free will, just a strong assertations of God's will.

I agree. But theologians are unanimous that God could force a will, just that He doesnt ever out of respect for our moral liberty.
And what of Pharoh? Did not God harden his heart?
And what about keanu reeves?(just kidding)in Constantine?
Seriously This is sortof like the "can God make a rock so large...." discussion
"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Then it should be easy for you to cite a statement from a Pope or some Vatican office recognizing that the consensus opinion of theologians is binding on souls to a moral certainty.

I await the document issued by the Holy See or one of its designates that has ever taught this proposition.

As I said, I won't bicker any longer, but here is the documentation you requested. 

"StevusMangus" Wrote:First define consensus,

What definition does the Magisterium use?

Common meaning of the word since there is no particular ecclesiastical meaning, i.e.,:

In English

Quote:1 a: general agreement : unanimity consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned consensus was to go ahead>

Source: Merriam-Webster

In Latin
consensus, consensus  N (4th) M   [XXXBO] 
agreement (opinion), consent, harmony; unanimity; conclusion, plot, conspiracy; general consensus; custom; combined action; [concensu => by general consent];

Source: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?consensus

I inquired about statements on the consensus of theologians, and Fr. Cekada was kind enough to refer me to one of his papers where he discusses some of this.  The remainder comes from that paper.

"Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles", Fr. Cekada

"StevusMagnus" Wrote: then define theologian

Quote:I.  Introductory Concepts.

A.  Definition of Theologian = learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church.

1.  in the Church = in union with the Church, either with: (a) a Specific mission from the Church or (b) the Consent of the Church, either express or tacit.

2.  doctrine = either dogma or moral.

Source: Resume translated by Fr. Cekada from Fr. Reginald-Maria  SCHULTES  OP,  De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae  [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, pp. 667ff. This book was used by students for Doctoral degrees in theology in Roman Universities in the early 1900s.  Fr. Schultes held the highest theological degree in the Domincan Order (OPS ThMagister), and was a Professor at the Pontifical University of the Angelicum in Rome.

"StevusMagnus" Wrote:then show where it is taught that this combination in and of itself gives us moral certainty.

"Since when has the "consensus of theologians" provided us with moral certitude? Please quote the Council that defined this axiom.
theologians in and of themselves have no binding Magisterial authority to bind us to propositions to a moral certainty.

Quote:II.  You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith
(Pius IX).

For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pon-
tiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordi-
nary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held
by Catholic theologians to belong to faith
. Tuas Libenter (1863),
DZ 1683.

Quote:2.  Pius IX. Reproof to those who reject the teachings of scholastic
  Nor are we ignorant that in Germany there also pre-
vailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the
teaching of those supreme Doctors, whom the universal
Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and
sanctity of life. But by this false opinion the authority of the
Church itself is called into danger
, especially since the
Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has
permitted that theological science be cultivated according to
the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanc-
tioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools
, but it
[the Church] also very often extolled their theological doctrine
with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a
very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against
its enemies. Tuas libenter, 1863, DZ 1680.

Quote:IV. Thesis: The unanimous teaching of theologians in matters of faith and morals establishes certitude for the proof of a dogma

A.  First Proof: The connection of theologians with the Church.

1.  As men who study theological science, theologians have only a scientific and historical authority. But as servants, organs, and witness of the Church, they possess an authority that is both dogmatic and certain.

2.  Church doctrine on matters of faith and morals possesses an authority that is dogmatic and certain. (a) The unanimous teaching of theologians testifies and expresses the doctrine of the Church, because the Church accepts the common teaching of theologians as true and as her own when she either tacitly or expressly approves it. (b) Theologians as ministers and organs of the Church instruct the faithful in the doctrines of the faith. So, in fact those things preached, taught, held and believed are those same things the theologians propose and teach.

3.  And so, because of the theologians connection with the Church, their agreement on a doctrine has an authority that is both dogmatic and certain, because otherwise the authority of the Church herself would be endangered, because she admitted, fostered or approved the [false] doctrine of theologians.

Source: SCHULTES, op. cit.

"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Only the Magisterium can give us moral certitude on anything, not theologians.

I think we should consider what they have to say on matters where the Church has not spoken definitively, but in no way do I think we are bound to a moral certainty by those opinions.

theologians in and of themselves have no binding Magisterial authority to bind us to propositions to a moral certainty.

If you can produce one I'd be more than happy to study it and, if appropriate, change my position.

Quote:4.  This proof is confirmed because the dogmatic authority of theologians is denied by all those and only those who: (a) Deny or refuse to admit the dogmatic authority of the Church; or (b) At least refuse to consider the connection of theologians with the Church. It is no wonder that all enemies of the Church or Catholic truth are likewise enemies of Catholic theology.

B.  Second Proof: False principles behind opposing arguments.

ïOpponents deny the dogmatic authority of theologians by:
(1) Breaking the link between the Church and theologians, or by at
least denying or diminishing the dogmatic authority of the Church
(2) Directly opposing Catholic doctrine which theologians
propose and defend. (3) Attempting to introduce erroneous phi-
losophy or other false concepts incompatible with the teaching of
the faith.

Source: SCHULTES, Op. Cit.

Quote:II.  Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A.  Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at cen-
ter of universe.)
B.  Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1.  Luther. Scholastic theology is ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.
2.  Melancthon. Scholastic theology is the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.
C.  Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians obscured revealed doc-
D.  Modernists, liberals, rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature
of truth.)

Source: SCHULTES, Op. Cit.
Per the OP, I think this is one of those situations that is parallel to St. Anselm in Cur Deus Homo where he says the phrases "Christ could lie" and "Christ could not lie" are both correct. One refers to power, and the other to nature. He had the power to lie, but since it is contrary to His nature, He would never have the desire to do so (and without the desire, the act of the will cannot follow).

So God can deliver a soul from Hell in that He has the power to do so, but He cannot deliver a soul from Hell since it is contrary to His nature and therefore He would never desire to do so.
Quis, I'm glad you posted the excerpts from Father's article. I was about to do the same.

Stevus, I'm with Quis in being pretty startled that you don't know some of this basic theology. Read Fr. Cekada's article, it'll clear things up.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)