God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
#61
neel Wrote: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.
You're startled I did not know that Catholics in good standing are free to believe God saves damned souls?

Is this commonplace teaching in Traditional Catechisms I missed somewhere along the line?

Reply
#62
Quis,

A few thoughts.

First, thanks for the article as it helped clarify what constitutes a "theologian".

Nevertheless, the paper stands for the proposition that a unanimous statement of the theologians provides certitude, not a mere consensus.

In addition, by "theologians" we are not just talking about living theologians here, but always in conjunction with he theoogians of history and what they have said regarding whether a doctrine is Catholic or not. If this is the case, it is a key distinction since I understood you to mean living theologians.

What Fr. Cekada's article basically says is that the unanimous opinion of theologians (past and present) is important in establishing the ordinary Magisterium which consists of that which Catholics everywhere and always believed. Ok, fair enough.

However, I doubt you would agree that if 51% of living theologians said that women can be ordained you'd agree that binds us to a moral certainty. This was my point. That just because living theologians get a consensus and declare something doesn't mean we are bound to believe it to a moral certainty. By your texts it looks like these living theologians are bound to the opinions of previous ones throughout time, establishing the ordinary Magisterium (unless the Vatican trumps them in establishing a clarification I presume).

Thanks for the research.

Now as to our question, the CE says that one may hold that God saves the damned and not violate any dogma. Then the CE says we should believe He does not because of the teaching of the theologians.

Question. Does this mean I'm bound to hold, to a moral certainty, that God does not free the souls of the damned? If so, that seems to contradict the CE's statement that I can hold the contrary position and not contradict Catholic dogma.
Reply
#63
StevusMagnus Wrote:You're startled I did not know that Catholics in good standing are free to believe God saves damned souls?

Since this isn't directly about our dispute on theologians, I'm going to let myself comment.  That isn't what the CE says at all.  In fact, it says the opposite.

"CE" Wrote:But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.

Which goes to our dispute - whether the consensus of theologians is binding or gives certitude.

If, after reading what I have cited above, you come to the conclusion that the consensus of theologians is binding, then you will necessarily come to the conclusion that we are not completely free to believe God saves damned souls, and the degree of freedom we have corresponds directly to the degree of theological certainty.  Which is why I asked if anyone knew what Denziger said because they state the degree of theological certainty for most things.

If you do not come to the conclusion that the consensus of theologians is binding, then I suppose you could come to the conclusion we are free to believe as we want in spite of the CE statement that it is "a teaching which should be accepted," perhaps viewing it as a recommendation.

Reply
#64
Sorry to come into this all late, but wasn't it a heresy in the early Church that God would free the souls out of hell after the Resurrection of the Body? I think Origen may have even prescribed to this.  
Reply
#65
Stevus, I'm going to answer what you asked - I'm not ignoring you.  It's just been busy around here lately especially if I'm expected to give a real answer and not an off-the-cuff remark. ;)
Reply
#66
No problem, but I should note you quote the CE as giving a "unanimous opinion" of theologians, not merely a "consensus".

I can buy that a unanimous opinion of theologians (properly defined as including past and present ones) can bind to a moral certanity because that is really just the same thing as Tradition, or the ordinary Magisterium.

I'm not buying "consensus" though.

Thus, I would be inclined to agree that a Catholic can believe God does not save damned souls to a moral certainty, though one can believe that it is possible, since it is not absolutely certain as a matter of faith.
Reply
#67
Quis, the International Theological Commission of the Vatican did away with Limbo. Is this not a consensus? Are we bound to a moral certainty not to believe in Limbo?
Reply
#68
StevusMagnus Wrote:Quis, the International Theological Commission of the Vatican did away with Limbo. Is this not a consensus? Are we bound to a moral certainty not to believe in Limbo?

No, it just took a broader view of the subject using all of the Church's teaching and found there really is no definite answer and all we can do is hope. I didn't condemn limbo, just didn't dwell on specific ideas.
Reply
#69
ONeill Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Quis, the International Theological Commission of the Vatican did away with Limbo. Is this not a consensus? Are we bound to a moral certainty not to believe in Limbo?

No, it just took a broader view of the subject using all of the Church's teaching and found there really is no definite answer and all we can do is hope. I didn't condemn limbo, just didn't dwell on specific ideas.

I agree with this answer, and why I agree will become clearer when I answer your questions which I plan to do now (unless I get interrupted - sigh).
Reply
#70
ONeill Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Quis, the International Theological Commission of the Vatican did away with Limbo. Is this not a consensus? Are we bound to a moral certainty not to believe in Limbo?

No, it just took a broader view of the subject using all of the Church's teaching and found there really is no definite answer and all we can do is hope. I didn't condemn limbo, just didn't dwell on specific ideas.

If we take the idea that living theologian consensus can bind then this document does just that. It binds that there is good hope for unbaptized infant salvation to a moral certainty.

If we take the idea that past theologian consensus binds then we are bound in the other direction to accept limbo to a moral certanity.

Which is it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)