Judases in the Church
#41
Quote: If you don't acknowledge this sort of desire, then those natives of good faith who lived in the New World before Columbus arrived to bring them explicit knowledge of God were damned to hell, and we can say that with dogmatic support. Obviously, if the interpretation is limited to only catechumens, any of these natives who spend his/her entire life doing works of charity, discerning truth, and desiring truth are certainly in hell by an extension of the definition of a dogmatic fact. I don't think God would want us doing this, but this rigid interpretation of the dogma seems to force us to do it.

Must we say they are in Limbo, then? 
They had no Faith.  I imagine some are in limbo.  Many are in hell, and some were saved by a miracle.  We can't judge an individual.

St. Francis Xavier's letter concerning what he preached to the Japs is instructive here.  I don't have a link handy and have to start my day, but he told them their parents and ancestors were in hell.  Which is not surprising as that was what the Church had always taught, and this is what Feeney was teaching.
Reply
#42
(05-26-2010, 10:20 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(05-26-2010, 06:40 AM)stvincentferrer Wrote: Wow, I think we're both guilty of making uncharitable assumptions about each other, but since I started it I apologize.

Accepted and reciprocated!

(Now, should we have a Novus Ordo-style hug and sing kumbaya?)

I'll bring the guitar, you bring the marshmallows!  ;D
Reply
#43
(05-27-2010, 07:32 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: If you don't acknowledge this sort of desire, then those natives of good faith who lived in the New World before Columbus arrived to bring them explicit knowledge of God were damned to hell, and we can say that with dogmatic support. Obviously, if the interpretation is limited to only catechumens, any of these natives who spend his/her entire life doing works of charity, discerning truth, and desiring truth are certainly in hell by an extension of the definition of a dogmatic fact. I don't think God would want us doing this, but this rigid interpretation of the dogma seems to force us to do it.

Must we say they are in Limbo, then? 
They had no Faith. 

I meant to say "of good will". By this I don't mean to reduce the dogma of the Church to mere subjectivity. I mean that a soul can have faith without having explicit knowledge of faith. Since there are those who are incapable of understanding explicit faith or the Church's teachings as a result of various intellectual deficits, and we know that God specifically created them without these intellectual capacities, then explicit faith is not always necessary. If it were, then a person (such as Terri Schiavo) who had explicit faith and then entered a coma would forfeit all claims to eternal life because, at the time of her death, she didn't actualize the capacity for explicit faith. Do people forfeit their explicit faith while they sleep? It seems ridiculous to think that a non-actualized capacity would render a person incapable of explicit faith. Similarly, it seems less than reasonable to claim that a person who, through no fault of their own, was born with intellectual deficits such that they were unable to comprehend explicit faith would not be able to merit heaven. If this is true, then what about those who, through no fault of their own, had not yet received the Gospel, but were desirous for it? Columbus and Cortez recorded the eagerness with which some of the natives received the Gospel. Were those people just "predestined" to go to heaven because they happened to live at a time when God chose to bring the Gospel to them? I'm certain that these people weren't unique in their desire. What about many of the natives who might have died just before Columbus arrived who were desirous of the Gospel in the same way that their sons and daughters were? It seems reasonable to think that these people could have faith in God without having explicit knowledge of Him. I don't mean to say that they worship God through some false religion; I am most certainly opposed to that idea. But we can discern a lot from the natural law, and St. Paul acknowledges that people can know of God without actually knowing Him:

Acts 17 Wrote:21 (Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing some new thing.) 22 But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. 23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you: 24 God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is he served with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:
Emphasis added.

Again, I don't mean to erode the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but I think that one can have faith in the true God without knowing Him, so long as one does not give himself over to sensuality (as the inspired authors write in another book), does not adhere to religious that worship demons, abides by the natural law to the best of his understanding, is invincibly ignorant, desires to know God, would accept the teachings of God if made aware of them, and does not reject some law or teaching of God (maybe, believing that God wants to punish us for all eternity and we have to "get on His good side" in order to be exempt.)


Quote:I imagine some are in limbo.  Many are in hell, and some were saved by a miracle.  We can't judge an individual.

Right, I agree with this. But you rule out all possibility that someone could have faith that a good, loving God does exist, whose will that person desires to follow with his whole heart, mind, and soul?

Quote:St. Francis Xavier's letter concerning what he preached to the Japs is instructive here.  I don't have a link handy and have to start my day, but he told them their parents and ancestors were in hell.  Which is not surprising as that was what the Church had always taught, and this is what Feeney was teaching.

Good point. I don't rule out the saint's preaching, but what he told the Japs isn't necessarily infallible. This could have been his understanding of the teaching. Wording has everything to do with it. The same doctrine can be presented in two different lights depending on the wording. I think there are a lot of conditions necessary for one to be baptized by desire, but I think that if the invincibly ignorant have the most important condition - a sincere desire to do the will of God - everything else naturally follows from that desire.
Reply
#44
That was an excellent post, INPEFESS.
Reply
#45
(05-31-2010, 05:23 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: That was an excellent post, INPEFESS.

You are very kind. Thank you.
Reply
#46
When i read these posts i can see why the liberals knew they had to get rid of EENS before anything else, they knew the conservatives would go along with  them on this so after Feeney they went. When Feeney was denounced and excommunicated for disobedience for refusing to appear in Rome, they struck the blow for religious liberty, of course while they were denouncing Feeney Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Wright and the Jesuits were beginning the ecumenical movement in Boston by opening a multi-faith chapel on the Jewish Brandeis University campus mind you this was the 1950s, only Father Feeney and his followers protested  this putting the church on an equal footing (if not in dogma, but in the more important public's mind) with the talmudic perfidious jews. There were no Catholic Thinkers and his ilk, no SSPXers, they were sound asleep glorying in the percieved 1950s Catholicism . I will wager even the Catholic Thinkers of the time werent even aware of Pope Pius 10th's modernist warning. No the Catholic Thinker's were fine, their kids were obedient, gregorian chant was in air. In reality Father Feeney was a prophet who saw what was coming even sending a letter to Pope Pius 12th that if something isnt done in 10 years it will be too late. Of course 10 years later Vatican 2 arrived and now not only did FatherFeeney had to go but his detractors such as Father Fenton , Frank Sheed and others were tossed aside as not only EENS would be reduced to a meaningless formula as Pius 12th said in Humani Generis (1950) but all dogmas were to be watered down DESIRE became the in cool thing it was groovy to DESIRE  living together without marriage, who needs a priest GOD knows we love each other, Confess to a priest, who needs that we'll just gather in the church write our sins down, burn them and poof! our DESIRE will be released. The DESIRE for the priesthood is the latest with females ordaining themselves because they DESIRE it.  Who needs to wake Father up at 3AM in the morning for moms extreme unction , no need to bother him mom was just fine and if she gets better she can come for the blessing of the sick. Who needs the hands of Bishops for the priesthod when you can desire it, God recognizes it. DESIRE a truly diabolical word that made the material world just an option, strange for a faith whose founder JESUS  who incarnated  to come to earth , he should have remained in heaven hes God he could have done everything from there. As for The Catholic thinkers of the world well they awoke around 1965 and started whining of course all was under the modernists control by then . Today they like Feeney  in 1953 they are also outside the church dialoguing with Rome for recognition and because most bishops ignore them , they must vent their rage on someone.............so they attack FATHER LEONARD FEENEY the first victim of the modernist heresy , but nobody cares because nobody believes EENS anymore anyway so why worry about DESIRE....great job guys!!!!
Reply
#47
I thought Dante Alighieri made the most sense out of EENS in the Divina Commedia. "Righteous pagans" still go to hell, but it's the first circle of hell, which is limbo. So you have people like Aristotle, Julius Caesar, and even "righteous Mohammedans" like Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Salah ad-Din.
Reply
#48
Yep the first tier of hell is for those who die with the stain of Original sin on them , they are denied the beatific vision (a real loss) but are not punished in a manner such as we understand because they unknowingly committed sin. Of course only God can judge this since he knows the graces he sent to that individual during his life and the responses he gave to it. For example a "good" protestant could have recieved the grace of a Catholic friend wanting to take him to mass or being given a book which had he followed that grace of direction would have led him eventually into the Church (the bark of Peter)  We will see in eternity how many actual graces people have spurned from God because they were more interested in a sport or a hobby or whatever than picking up a Catholic book, searching out where JESUS's church is or by ignoring an actual grace.
Reply
#49
I also have trouble what God will do in certain circumstances. The mind of God is way beyond our comprehension. We see his world under the spell of original Sin of course and what do we see hundreds of millions of babies murdered in abortion clinics, starvation in parts of the world, babies with cancer and other ailments  and of course adults with the same symptoms. Now we know original sin is Gods way to show us clearly how we will be separated from him here in body even if our soul is in union with him. Can you then imagine HELL when we are 100% separated from God in Body and Soul, the horror of it makes the carnage of WW2 look pale in comparison. Then comes those who say they believe in just a loving God , well they can believe whatever they want God allows it but open your eyes God allows all these horrors we see when he can remove them in an instant but he doesnt for who knows what reason. Its far above our understanding , we are creatures not the Creator! There are some who say God cant condemn to Hell who in their own estimate is a a "good devout pagan, jew, protestant, whatever"  but does God allow innocent of any sin babies to suffer yes he does, so why must he reward this person , as i said above who knows what actual graces God sent to him in his life to lead him to the TRUTH. Of course there are those who try to explain away the harshness of God by opening heaven to those they feel deserve it but ultimately let them say as they wish God will make the only judgement on their Judgement day.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)