Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#71
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 05:19 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Baltimore Catechism 3 explains this concept as well in Question 510:

Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

       1 Has been validly baptized;
       2 Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
       3 Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

The semi-colon is very important, as there are Protestants who meet ALL 3, just as there are non-Christians who meet the last two. The semi-colon can join these thoughts, but they are very much able to stand on their own or collectively.

Exactly how is it that you know that there are people, Catholic or not, who meet all 3? You have no way of judging others yet you do any way - you judge them sincere in their error and reward them salvation - same as the NO does.

For every pope, verse and catechism you can misquote to suit your error, I have at least twice as many - so no need to tread that worn out path - explain your theory using: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her...
--Pope Eugene IV,  Cantate Domino 1441
as your spring board for a change - see how that works out.

As for BC's number 2, that is just obvious heresy.

Just admit it - you do not believe in No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You believe that there is Some Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You can misinterpret Scripture as 2Peter 3:16 dictates: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. to your heart's content, and you can rewrite defined dogma into meaningless formulas much as you want - but the thing you cannot do is change the Dogma from "No Salvation" to "Some Salvation" no matter how hard you try.

How do I know there are people who meet all three? Because grammar and punctuation rules dictate it by the semi-colon, and well, it's just true. If there couldn't be those who meet all three, no semi-colon would be used. But the semi-colon indicates that #'s 2 and 3 can also stand on their own. Theology dictates, in fact, that all three must exist.

You have no argument. Now go find a good orthodox priest, and it won't matter if he's SSPX, FSSP or NO all the way, they'll all say the same thing. You are done. If this were a fight I'd be standing over you telling you getting up is pointless, and I'd be correct.

Now stick a kleenex in your nose and go learn the faith you purport to have.

---------

Walty- you still missing the point.

Yes, indeed, there can be those things which lead to the Church, and many will convert just as many will ignore. There are also those things which lead to the Church but for whatever reason never were able to be capitalized on in terms of a conversion while alive here on earth, though they either live as an invisible member, or die as one.

Salvation is not "normative" outside of the visible Church, it simply is. It is not desirable though. For there is only one true Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. The visible aspect is but as temporary as Israel was temporary to the Jews, but the visible assists greatly in that journey. Only we don't have to learn a new system because the next time Jesus comes it's the Four Last Things for realz.

Are you reading the sources I'm giving you, or just reading my posts on them? There's clarity, especially in Bishop Morrow's work as he breaks it down more specifically than the BC3; It's sort of like a Summa-lite.



Reply
#72
Stubborn, I'd also like to point out that you quoted St. Peter out of context as intended, and in doing so, quote it against yourself. For you are ignorant and unlearned and wrest with the scriptures leading men to divers and false doctrines. Oh, the verse is right for sure, but you don't realize it applies to you, not me.

I say again: Romans 2:3

You really want to get into a battle of scripture quoting with a former Protestant who has nothing to do but essentially read as much as he wants, picks the brains of men FAR smarter than you, and who has enough experience in researching to understand where to look for the right answers?

Brother, the battle is over already.

You lost.

I am not right, but rather the Church is right and so God is right. I am just repeating what the Church and God have said. You are not. Ergo, you're wrong.
Reply
#73
(06-25-2012, 06:45 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)DJR Wrote: The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.
This, I think, is at odds with the quote from the CDF and what VII states on this matter.  They imply that grace is given through these religions, that they are vehicles at least for grace, and possibly for salvation itself. That's where the rub is, and it's certainly a large doctrinal deviation.

But the opening post deals with whether non-Catholics can be saved, not how they can be saved, and whether the last statement differs somehow from the previous ones.  The last statement is very general and ambiguous and could have been said, without qualm of conscience, by any Catholic prior to Vatican II.  I can still believe, even in a "Feeneyite" manner, that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and still say, without any problem, the statement above attributed to the reigning pope.  I don't see what the problem is, unless I try to read into the statement something it does not explicitly state.
Reply
#74
(06-25-2012, 07:21 PM)DJR Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 06:45 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)DJR Wrote: The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.
This, I think, is at odds with the quote from the CDF and what VII states on this matter.  They imply that grace is given through these religions, that they are vehicles at least for grace, and possibly for salvation itself. That's where the rub is, and it's certainly a large doctrinal deviation.

But the opening post deals with whether non-Catholics can be saved, not how they can be saved, and whether the last statement differs somehow from the previous ones.  The last statement is very general and ambiguous and could have been said, without qualm of conscience, by any Catholic prior to Vatican II.  I can still believe, even in a "Feeneyite" manner, that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and still say, without any problem, the statement above attributed to the reigning pope.  I don't see what the problem is, unless I try to read into the statement something it does not explicitly state.

Right. And this is the crux of the issue.

We must read these things with proper doctrine in mind, especially coming from the mouth of such an eminent theologian as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger AKA Pope Benedict XVI.

If the Pope were to have said "Protestantism saves" or whatever, yeah, it'd be outright heresy.

But that is not being said. Rather, he is saying that thing the Church has always said, as God has always said it: There's God's Way and then there is the way God allows. We'd prefer, as Jesus pleaded, that we'd all be one. For sure. But this is just not the reality of where we find ourselves.

However, those who will be saved, will be saved through Christ and they WILL all be one.

At any rate, Stubborn and anyone who agrees with him is just flat out wrong.
Reply
#75
(06-25-2012, 06:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 05:19 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Baltimore Catechism 3 explains this concept as well in Question 510:

Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

       1 Has been validly baptized;
       2 Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
       3 Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

The semi-colon is very important, as there are Protestants who meet ALL 3, just as there are non-Christians who meet the last two. The semi-colon can join these thoughts, but they are very much able to stand on their own or collectively.

Exactly how is it that you know that there are people, Catholic or not, who meet all 3? You have no way of judging others yet you do any way - you judge them sincere in their error and reward them salvation - same as the NO does.

For every pope, verse and catechism you can misquote to suit your error, I have at least twice as many - so no need to tread that worn out path - explain your theory using: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her...
--Pope Eugene IV,  Cantate Domino 1441
as your spring board for a change - see how that works out.

As for BC's number 2, that is just obvious heresy.

Just admit it - you do not believe in No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You believe that there is Some Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You can misinterpret Scripture as 2Peter 3:16 dictates: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. to your heart's content, and you can rewrite defined dogma into meaningless formulas much as you want - but the thing you cannot do is change the Dogma from "No Salvation" to "Some Salvation" no matter how hard you try.

How do I know there are people who meet all three? Because grammar and punctuation rules dictate it by the semi-colon, and well, it's just true. If there couldn't be those who meet all three, no semi-colon would be used. But the semi-colon indicates that #'s 2 and 3 can also stand on their own. Theology dictates, in fact, that all three must exist.

You have no argument. Now go find a good orthodox priest, and it won't matter if he's SSPX, FSSP or NO all the way, they'll all say the same thing. You are done. If this were a fight I'd be standing over you telling you getting up is pointless, and I'd be correct.

Now stick a kleenex in your nose and go learn the faith you purport to have.

---------

Walty- you still missing the point.

Yes, indeed, there can be those things which lead to the Church, and many will convert just as many will ignore. There are also those things which lead to the Church but for whatever reason never were able to be capitalized on in terms of a conversion while alive here on earth, though they either live as an invisible member, or die as one.

Salvation is not "normative" outside of the visible Church, it simply is. It is not desirable though. For there is only one true Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. The visible aspect is but as temporary as Israel was temporary to the Jews, but the visible assists greatly in that journey. Only we don't have to learn a new system because the next time Jesus comes it's the Four Last Things for realz.

Are you reading the sources I'm giving you, or just reading my posts on them? There's clarity, especially in Bishop Morrow's work as he breaks it down more specifically than the BC3; It's sort of like a Summa-lite.

Your definition of the Church is, in my opinion, not traditional.  You keep making this distinction between the visible institution of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ which I do not think is orthodox.

And you keep talking about the Summa.  I'm very familiar with the Summa.  I don't think anything written by St. Thomas backs you up in this regard, but you need to provide some citation if you're going to argue otherwise.
Reply
#76
I've provided citation. Gobs of it.

The Summa very clearly states this position:




Quote:Article 3. Whether it is necessary for salvation to believe anything above the natural reason?

Objection 1. It would seem unnecessary for salvation to believe anything above the natural reason. For the salvation and perfection of a thing seem to be sufficiently insured by its natural endowments. Now matters of faith, surpass man's natural reason, since they are things unseen as stated above (Question 1, Article 4). Therefore to believe seems unnecessary for salvation.

Objection 2. Further, it is dangerous for man to assent to matters, wherein he cannot judge whether that which is proposed to him be true or false, according to Job 12:11: "Doth not the ear discern words?" Now a man cannot form a judgment of this kind in matters of faith, since he cannot trace them back to first principles, by which all our judgments are guided. Therefore it is dangerous to believe in such matters. Therefore to believe is not necessary for salvation.

Objection 3. Further, man's salvation rests on God, according to Psalm 36:39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord." Now "the invisible things" of God "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also and Divinity," according to Romans 1:20: and those things which are clearly seen by the understanding are not an object of belief. Therefore it is not necessary for man's salvation, that he should believe certain things.

On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:6): "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

I answer that, Wherever one nature is subordinate to another, we find that two things concur towards the perfection of the lower nature, one of which is in respect of that nature's proper movement, while the other is in respect of the movement of the higher nature. Thus water by its proper movement moves towards the centre (of the earth), while according to the movement of the moon, it moves round the centre by ebb and flow. On like manner the planets have their proper movements from west to east, while in accordance with the movement of the first heaven, they have a movement from east to west. Now the created rational nature alone is immediately subordinate to God, since other creatures do not attain to the universal, but only to something particular, while they partake of the Divine goodness either in "being" only, as inanimate things, or also in "living," and in "knowing singulars," as plants and animals; whereas the rational nature, in as much as it apprehends the universal notion of good and being, is immediately related to the universal principle of being.

Consequently the perfection of the rational creature consists not only in what belongs to it in respect of its nature, but also in that which it acquires through a supernatural participation of Divine goodness. Hence it was said above (I-II, 3, 8) that man's ultimate happiness consists in a supernatural vision of God: to which vision man cannot attain unless he be taught by God, according to John 6:45: "Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh to Me." Now man acquires a share of this learning, not indeed all at once, but by little and little, according to the mode of his nature: and every one who learns thus must needs believe, in order that he may acquire science in a perfect degree; thus also the Philosopher remarks (De Soph. Elench. i, 2) that "it behooves a learner to believe."

Hence in order that a man arrive at the perfect vision of heavenly happiness, he must first of all believe God, as a disciple believes the master who is teaching him.

Reply to Objection 1. Since man's nature is dependent on a higher nature, natural knowledge does not suffice for its perfection, and some supernatural knowledge is necessary, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2. Just as man assents to first principles, by the natural light of his intellect, so does a virtuous man, by the habit of virtue, judge aright of things concerning that virtue; and in this way, by the light of faith which God bestows on him, a man assents to matters of faith and not to those which are against faith. Consequently "there is no" danger or "condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus," and whom He has enlightened by faith.

Reply to Objection 3. In many respects faith perceives the invisible things of God in a higher way than natural reason does in proceeding to God from His creatures. Hence it is written (Sirach 3:25): "Many things are shown to thee above the understandings of man."


Quote:Article 6. Whether all are equally bound to have explicit faith?

Objection 1. It would seem that all are equally bound to have explicit faith. For all are bound to those things which are necessary for salvation, as is evidenced by the precepts of charity. Now it is necessary for salvation that certain things should be believed explicitly. Therefore all are equally bound to have explicit faith.

Objection 2. Further, no one should be put to test in matters that he is not bound to believe. But simple reasons are sometimes tested in reference to the slightest articles of faith. Therefore all are bound to believe everything explicitly.

Objection 3. Further, if the simple are bound to have, not explicit but only implicit faith, their faith must needs be implied in the faith of the learned. But this seems unsafe, since it is possible for the learned to err. Therefore it seems that the simple should also have explicit faith; so that all are, therefore, equally bound to have explicit faith.

On the contrary, It is written (Job 1:14): "The oxen were ploughing, and the asses feeding beside them," because, as Gregory expounds this passage (Moral. ii, 17), the simple, who are signified by the asses, ought, in matters of faith, to stay by the learned, who are denoted by the oxen.

I answer that, The unfolding of matters of faith is the result of Divine revelation: for matters of faith surpass natural reason. Now Divine revelation reaches those of lower degree through those who are over them, in a certain order; to men, for instance, through the angels, and to the lower angels through the higher, as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. iv, vii). On like manner therefore the unfolding of faith must needs reach men of lower degree through those of higher degree. Consequently, just as the higher angels, who enlighten those who are below them, have a fuller knowledge of Divine things than the lower angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. xii), so too, men of higher degree, whose business it is to teach others, are under obligation to have fuller knowledge of matters of faith, and to believe them more explicitly.

Reply to Objection 1. The unfolding of the articles of faith is not equally necessary for the salvation of all, since those of higher degree, whose duty it is to teach others, are bound to believe explicitly more things than others are.

Reply to Objection 2. Simple persons should not be put to the test about subtle questions of faith, unless they be suspected of having been corrupted by heretics, who are wont to corrupt the faith of simple people in such questions. If, however, it is found that they are free from obstinacy in their heterodox sentiments, and that it is due to their simplicity, it is no fault of theirs.

Reply to Objection 3. The simple have no faith implied in that of the learned, except in so far as the latter adhere to the Divine teaching. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 4:16): "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not."


Quote:Article 7. Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not necessary for the salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ. For man is not bound to believe explicitly what the angels are ignorant about: since the unfolding of faith is the result of Divine revelation, which reaches man by means of the angels, as stated above (6; I, 111, 1). Now even the angels were in ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation: hence, according to the commentary of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), it is they who ask (Psalm 23:8): "Who is this king of glory?" and (Isaiah 63:1): "Who is this that cometh from Edom?" Therefore men were not bound to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation.

Objection 2. Further, it is evident that John the Baptist was one of the teachers, and most nigh to Christ, Who said of him (Matthew 11:11) that "there hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than" he. Now John the Baptist does not appear to have known the mystery of Christ explicitly, since he asked Christ (Matthew 11:3): "Art Thou He that art to come, or look we for another?" Therefore even the teachers were not bound to explicit faith in Christ.

Objection 3. Further, many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. ix). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii; Ep. cxc): "Our faith is sound if we believe that no man, old or young is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ."

I answer that, As stated above (5; 1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (Question 1, Article 7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.

Reply to Objection 1. The mystery of the Kingdom of God was not entirely hidden from the angels, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. v, 19), yet certain aspects thereof were better known to them when Christ revealed them to them.

Reply to Objection 2. It was not through ignorance that John the Baptist inquired of Christ's advent in the flesh, since he had clearly professed his belief therein, saying: "I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34). Hence he did not say: "Art Thou He that hast come?" but "Art Thou He that art to come?" thus saying about the future, not about the past. Likewise it is not to be believed that he was ignorant of Christ's future Passion, for he had already said (John 1:39): "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins [Vulgate: 'sin'] of the world," thus foretelling His future immolation; and since other prophets had foretold it, as may be seen especially in Isaias 53. We may therefore say with Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that he asked this question, being in ignorance as to whether Christ would descend into hell in His own Person. But he did not ignore the fact that the power of Christ's Passion would be extended to those who were detained in Limbo, according to Zechariah 9:11: "Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is no water"; nor was he bound to believe explicitly, before its fulfilment, that Christ was to descend thither Himself.

It may also be replied that, as Ambrose observes in his commentary on Luke 7:19, he made this inquiry, not from doubt or ignorance but from devotion: or again, with Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvi in Matth.), that he inquired, not as though ignorant himself, but because he wished his disciples to be satisfied on that point, through Christ: hence the latter framed His answer so as to instruct the disciples, by pointing to the signs of His works.

Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."


Quote:Article 8. Whether it is necessary for salvation to believe explicitly in the Trinity?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not necessary for salvation to believe explicitly in the Trinity. For the Apostle says (Hebrews 11:6): "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." Now one can believe this without believing in the Trinity. Therefore it was not necessary to believe explicitly in the Trinity.

Objection 2. Further our Lord said (John 17:5-6): "Father, I have manifested Thy name to men," which words Augustine expounds (Tract. cvi) as follows: "Not the name by which Thou art called God, but the name whereby Thou art called My Father," and further on he adds: "In that He made this world, God is known to all nations; in that He is not to be worshipped together with false gods, 'God is known in Judea'; but, in that He is the Father of this Christ, through Whom He takes away the sin of the world, He now makes known to men this name of His, which hitherto they knew not." Therefore before the coming of Christ it was not known that Paternity and Filiation were in the Godhead: and so the Trinity was not believed explicitly.

Objection 3. Further, that which we are bound to believe explicitly of God is the object of heavenly happiness. Now the object of heavenly happiness is the sovereign good, which can be understood to be in God, without any distinction of Persons. Therefore it was not necessary to believe explicitly in the Trinity.

On the contrary, In the Old Testament the Trinity of Persons is expressed in many ways; thus at the very outset of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity: "Let us make man to Our image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Therefore from the very beginning it was necessary for salvation to believe in the Trinity.

I answer that, It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

Reply to Objection 1. Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people.

Reply to Objection 2. Before Christ's coming, faith in the Trinity lay hidden in the faith of the learned, but through Christ and the apostles it was shown to the world.

Reply to Objection 3. God's sovereign goodness as we understand it now through its effects, can be understood without the Trinity of Persons: but as understood in itself, and as seen by the Blessed, it cannot be understood without the Trinity of Persons. Moreover the mission of the Divine Persons brings us to heavenly happiness.


Quote:Article 10. Whether reasons in support of what we believe lessen the merit of faith?

Objection 1. It would seem that reasons in support of what we believe lessen the merit of faith. For Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that "there is no merit in believing what is shown by reason." If, therefore, human reason provides sufficient proof, the merit of faith is altogether taken away. Therefore it seems that any kind of human reasoning in support of matters of faith, diminishes the merit of believing.

Objection 2. Further, whatever lessens the measure of virtue, lessens the amount of merit, since "happiness is the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 9). Now human reasoning seems to diminish the measure of the virtue of faith, since it is essential to faith to be about the unseen, as stated above (1, 4,5). Now the more a thing is supported by reasons the less is it unseen. Therefore human reasons in support of matters of faith diminish the merit of faith.

Objection 3. Further, contrary things have contrary causes. Now an inducement in opposition to faith increases the merit of faith whether it consist in persecution inflicted by one who endeavors to force a man to renounce his faith, or in an argument persuading him to do so. Therefore reasons in support of faith diminish the merit of faith.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Peter 3:15): "Being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that faith [Vulgate: 'Of that hope which is in you.' St. Thomas' reading is apparently taken from Bede.] and hope which is in you." Now the Apostle would not give this advice, if it would imply a diminution in the merit of faith. Therefore reason does not diminish the merit of faith.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 9), the act of faith can be meritorious, in so far as it is subject to the will, not only as to the use, but also as to the assent. Now human reason in support of what we believe, may stand in a twofold relation to the will of the believer. First, as preceding the act of the will; as, for instance, when a man either has not the will, or not a prompt will, to believe, unless he be moved by human reasons: and in this way human reason diminishes the merit of faith. On this sense it has been said above (I-II, 24, 3, ad 1; 77, 6, ad 2) that, in moral virtues, a passion which precedes choice makes the virtuous act less praiseworthy. For just as a man ought to perform acts of moral virtue, on account of the judgment of his reason, and not on account of a passion, so ought he to believe matters of faith, not on account of human reason, but on account of the Divine authority. Secondly, human reasons may be consequent to the will of the believer. For when a man's will is ready to believe, he loves the truth he believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons he can find in support thereof; and in this way human reason does not exclude the merit of faith but is a sign of greater merit. Thus again, in moral virtues a consequent passion is the sign of a more prompt will, as stated above (I-II, 24, 3, ad 1). We have an indication of this in the words of the Samaritans to the woman, who is a type of human reason: "We now believe, not for thy saying" (John 4:42).

Reply to Objection 1. Gregory is referring to the case of a man who has no will to believe what is of faith, unless he be induced by reasons. But when a man has the will to believe what is of faith on the authority of God alone, although he may have reasons in demonstration of some of them, e.g. of the existence of God, the merit of his faith is not, for that reason, lost or diminished.

Reply to Objection 2. The reasons which are brought forward in support of the authority of faith, are not demonstrations which can bring intellectual vision to the human intellect, wherefore they do not cease to be unseen.

But they remove obstacles to faith, by showing that what faith proposes is not impossible; wherefore such reasons do not diminish the merit or the measure of faith. On the other hand, though demonstrative reasons in support of the preambles of faith [The Leonine Edition reads: 'in support of matters of faith which are however, preambles to the articles of faith, diminish,' etc.], but not of the articles of faith, diminish the measure of faith, since they make the thing believed to be seen, yet they do not diminish the measure of charity, which makes the will ready to believe them, even if they were unseen; and so the measure of merit is not diminished.

Reply to Objection 3. Whatever is in opposition to faith, whether it consist in a man's thoughts, or in outward persecution, increases the merit of faith, in so far as the will is shown to be more prompt and firm in believing. Hence the martyrs had more merit of faith, through not renouncing faith on account of persecution; and even the wise have greater merit of faith, through not renouncing their faith on account of the reasons brought forward by philosophers or heretics in opposition to faith. On the other hand things that are favorable to faith, do not always diminish the promptness of the will to believe, and therefore they do not always diminish the merit of faith.

Also check out all these quotes: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvation...the-church

Keep in mind the true definition of a heretic and a schismatic. If my great-great-great-grandad was a proper heretic or schismatic, the only way I can be one is if I also engage in heresy or schism- but I can't since I wasn't raised Catholic as that requires certain things which I might not have knowledge of, or even access to. In short, in Protestantism, it's kinda like the Jews finding out that Canaanites have started "worshiping" Jehovah, and also circumcise. It becomes a whole new phenomena previously unseen. The arguments of the past are still valid, but moot to the ones people try to address them to as embodying that thing properly. They don't. They can't. That's the point.

The wording is strong for those who do not believe who once believed, or who believe but do not submit. But as regards the soul who cannot by any means meet the definition of heretic or schismatic, we entrust to the mercy of God as He has made clear He is prepared to offer for those willing to accept it.

We also have to understand that heresy and schismatic doctrine is still that thing, and anyone who, knowing the truth, divests from the authority and teaching of the Church, is a heretic or schismatic.

But in all things, there is no Salvation outside the Church. There is not some salvation outside the Church, THAT IS Heresy. But we also have to understand that God gathers to Himself all things of Him.

It's a nuance that can be obfuscated by the approach one takes.

However, I stand by my position as the Summa, et al sources I have referenced agree.
Reply
#77
(06-25-2012, 07:03 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Stubborn, I'd also like to point out that you quoted St. Peter out of context as intended, and in doing so, quote it against yourself. For you are ignorant and unlearned and wrest with the scriptures leading men to divers and false doctrines. Oh, the verse is right for sure, but you don't realize it applies to you, not me.

I say again: Romans 2:3

You really want to get into a battle of scripture quoting with a former Protestant who has nothing to do but essentially read as much as he wants, picks the brains of men FAR smarter than you, and who has enough experience in researching to understand where to look for the right answers?

Brother, the battle is over already.

You lost.

Your problem is that you only think you know how to pick your battles.

You think that because you're supposedly an "ex protestant", one who worshiped the wrong God out of the wrong bible, that, that somehow makes you smart? Certainly then you know that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation - do give that up already.

So answer this post by using as your springboard to support your protestant belief that there really is some salvation outside the Church, this defined dogma from Pope Eugene IV,  Cantate Domino as though there were no other infallible declarations on EENS except this one: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her...

Now, save the self praise for your grand kids some day and explain, using the above canon, how those existing outside the Catholic Church are saved.
Reply
#78
Stubborn, you are.

What makes me smart is the following: I read what was written, I ask questions on it, I compare what I understood to be the case vs what is explained. I read it again. I then find the doctrine as explained, tested, and unable to be countered but by falsehoods.

I can prove Protestants wrong about the Church using their Bible, because with rare exception, it's the same thing as concerns the New Testament, since all the KJV translators did was rip off the Douay-Rheims.

The only missing books in the Protestant Bible are unneeded to prove their doctrine wrong. I do it daily.

I do know how to pick my battles, you don't. You don't because you think that as a cradle Catholic with all the answers (which are wrong) you can fight me and win. But you won't win because you don't fight me, but Christ. Just like Saint Paul, or rather, Shaul as he would have been known prior to his conversion, persecuted Christ when he obviously was persecuting physical Christians. Nuance.

Pope Eugene IV is saying what I'm saying: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

What you don't get, is the nuance of that.

I've already explained it and used almost every single available source which would have any weight with a traditionalist to do so.

But you aren't a traditionalist, just a traditional heretic.

In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, but we are all one in Christ. So too, as St. Paul says in Romans 2, those without the law, but listening to the conscience God has placed in their heart, which is to say natural law, establish to themselves a law, which is, ultimately, of God. Ergo, they follow the law in their own way as understood.

You keep throwing the same cut-off quote at me, which doesn't change the fact that it's still cut off. Nor does it address the fact that you're failing to disengage from your myopia and engage with nuanced language by looking at the totality of doctrine.

In short, you either don't know the faith or you have hardened your heart to it just like the Israelites did en masse.

I do not self-praise, as I've done nothing but listen to, read, and repeat from The Bible, The Popes, Saints, and The Summa Theologica. If I boast I boast of them, who boast of Christ. Subsidiarity in action, Stubborn. Need me to explain that concept to you properly as well?

God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ- Gal 6:14

Reply
#79
Jon,

I will try to make a post with serious effort in response to you. I literally have one minute and have to go. Briefly, a 30 year old Lutheran minister who was raised in his false sect is just as much a heretic and schismatic as Luther himself.
Reply
#80
Crusader,

Look forward to it. But you're wrong on the definition of a heretic and schismatic.

Saint Augustine says so here:
Quote:"1. The Apostle Paul has said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction. "
-Letters 43:1  (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm)

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)