EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
#41
(08-14-2012, 03:09 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Not at all, there is no third state as the writer of the article tries to make out, that is all I'm saying.

The article does not create a third state, inasmuch as he places the "portico" state IN the Church (and thus accessible to salvation). He is merely point out that a thorough analysis requires a distinction between an unbaptized adult catechumen for instance, and a regular Mass-goer.

Quote:I am not saying otherwise, I am merely point out that such people are still heretics and cannot belong to the body of the Church.

I don't disagree with you about them not belonging to the body (the analogy from the above example would be actually inside the building instead of in the portico). The question is are they nevertheless, inside the Church (i.e., are they like the catechumens, in that they are in the portico)?

There is no third state, period, one is in or one is out.

As for them belonging, in theory a person in invincible ignorance of the catholic religion could belong to the church 'in voto', I've never said otherwise.
Reply
#42
Quote:As for them belonging, in theory a person in invincible ignorance of the catholic religion could belong to the church 'in voto', I've never said otherwise.

Good then. We agree. In your view, does invincible ignorance extend past knowledge of existence to knowledge of true nature as well? Could someone who was baptized and knew the Catholic Church existed, but did not know (and was invincibly ignorant of knowing) that the Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ truly belong to the Church in voto?
Reply
#43
(08-14-2012, 04:07 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:As for them belonging, in theory a person in invincible ignorance of the catholic religion could belong to the church 'in voto', I've never said otherwise.

Good then. We agree. In your view, does invincible ignorance extend past knowledge of existence to knowledge of true nature as well? Could someone who was baptized and knew the Catholic Church existed, but did not know (and was invincibly ignorant of knowing) that the Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ truly belong to the Church in voto?

At the moment thats the view I go with, whether I stay with it or not I don't know, truth be told I feel like reading some Fr Muller and other more 'hardline' views on EENS but we'll see.
Reply
#44
The only thing I'm sure of out of all this:

This is definitely not 101.
Reply
#45
(08-14-2012, 06:58 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: The only thing I'm sure of out of all this:

This is definitely not 101.

103?
Reply
#46
I think it's actually too simple for most people.  It's not even 101, which in my mind means a college course, or high school at least.  It's catechism, which a child can understand with no problems that time and repetition won't correct.
Reply
#47
Like Baltimore Catechism #3 Questions 510-513?
Reply
#48
What questions are those, Jon?  I use the Penny Catechism, and the St. John Neumann. 
Reply
#49
Quote:103?

*shrug* I've said again and again that the way JBH et al. are arguing it, it's 600-level at least.

Quote:I think it's actually too simple for most people.  It's not even 101, which in my mind means a college course, or high school at least.  It's catechism, which a child can understand with no problems that time and repetition won't correct.

I could almost wish that that were so-- but when one plays pope against pope, catechism against catechism, theologian against theologian, and council against council, in my mind it becomes 600-level.

I'm not necessarily uncomfortable in a 600-level situation.  But when it's supposed, by most or all involved, to be a 101 or lower-level situation, and especially when it touches the Faith, that bothers me.

As such, I apply the cardinal rule, as I see it.  Fructibus cognoscetis.  By their fruits you will know them.  From what I can see of Abp. Lefebvre's work, what he was doing had to be good.  Neither the SSPX nor the FSSP would exist without him.  I'm not sure even the 'Feeneyites' or sedevacantists would have many TLMs without him.  If he's not a saint, it's hard for me to imagine who, after V2, could be.

I think I could say roughly the opposite for Abp. Muller.
Reply
#50
"Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.  To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace.  In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc.  Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself.  'Invincible ignorance', says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'is a punishment for sin' (De Infid. q. x., art. 1).  It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.

"But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man.  Far from it.  To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another.  To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin" (Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma, p. 218.).

It should be noted that the term, material heresy, most likely didn't exist in the time of St. Augustine.  Anyway, the Church has clearly taught that material heretics, who publicly profess a false faith, are not members of the Catholic Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)