Fides manducans intellectum!
#71
(10-26-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:30 AM)Geremia Wrote: Your entire argument assumes Revelation is restricted to Scripture (this is the Protestant sola scriptura); Revelation is also found in Tradition.

Tradition has no definite boundaries or content. The Roman magisterium can pull anything off from Tradition and claim it to be divinely revealed even if there's no scriptural or historical backing for it. That's what happened with the Assumption, for instance.
Yes, because She has the God-given authority to do so.
Reply
#72
(10-26-2012, 01:58 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:46 AM)Geremia Wrote: Before it was defined, it was "de fide divina," the denial of which is a "Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership." After its definition it became "de fide = de fide Catholica = de fide divina et Catholica," the denial of which is heresy and a "Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited." (source).

So, you can see one reason the Church wanted to define it: to purify herself of those who mortally sin against the faith.

The Arians weren't Christians to begin with. No-one can be a Christian without confessing that Son and the Father are one, that's absurd. The ecclesiastical councils of Nicea and Constantinople, with the backing of Imperial power, defended the scriptural and apostolic truth against the errors of the Arian party but, as St. Athanasius himself said, Holy Scripture is sufficient above all things and it bears testimony with infallible certainty to Christ's divinity.
Undoubtedly, yes
(10-26-2012, 01:53 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There was never a time where one could have faith and not believe Christ to be divine.
Well, mortally sinning against faith means you don't have faith, but that doesn't mean you cease being Christian. You can always repent.
Reply
#73
(10-26-2012, 02:09 AM)Geremia Wrote: Is there a hierarchy of more important and less important de fide dogmas? Are some more essential than others? Aren't all the articles of the Creed equally important? If you deny any one, you effectively deny them all.

The articles of the creed are a summary of scriptural dogma. In that sense, you need to subscribe to it, although it bears mentioning that no special Marian dogmas such as the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception are contained in the ecumenical creeds.

Quote:But denying them, besides being heretical, makes one more apt to deny Mary's fullness of grace or even to deny Original Sin.

Deny original sin? I don't know how you came up with that one.

Quote:Does one cease to be a Christian when he commits a mortal sin?

Can one be a Christian without faith? Of course not.
Reply
#74
(10-26-2012, 02:29 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 02:09 AM)Geremia Wrote: Is there a hierarchy of more important and less important de fide dogmas? Are some more essential than others? Aren't all the articles of the Creed equally important? If you deny any one, you effectively deny them all.

The articles of the creed are a summary of scriptural dogma. In that sense, you need to subscribe to it, although it bears mentioning that no special Marian dogmas such as the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception are contained in the ecumenical creeds.
They must be adhered to if you believe in the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which is certainly the part of the Creed that covers belief in future defined dogmas (esp. the Apostolic mark, which covers the authority of a pope to make dogmatic definitions).
(10-26-2012, 02:29 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:But denying them, besides being heretical, makes one more apt to deny Mary's fullness of grace or even to deny Original Sin.

Deny original sin? I don't know how you came up with that one.
Bl. Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because he could but because many failed to recognize the singular status of the most perfect human creature God has ever created, Our Lady. They failed to recognize this because they thought all men are immaculately conceived, viz., they denied Original Sin.
(10-26-2012, 02:29 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:Does one cease to be a Christian when he commits a mortal sin?

Can one be a Christian without faith? Of course not.
Those in Church Triumphant don't have faith, because they see God face-to-face. Does that make them not Christian?
Reply
#75
One could definitely say that Christ wasn't homooúsios with the Father before Nicea; hard to do otherwise, for lack of the word.

To deny Blessed John Henry's ideas about development, would seem to necessitate becoming at least semi-Arian (which believed in Christ's divinity, but not in homooúsios because it was a word developed by the Council outside of revelation proper).
Reply
#76
(10-26-2012, 02:49 AM)Geremia Wrote: They must be adhered to if you believe in the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which is certainly the part of the Creed that covers belief in future defined dogmas (esp. the Apostolic mark, which covers the authority of a pope to make dogmatic definitions).

Belief in future dogmas is not part of the creed. Your interpolation of such a meaning into the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" clause is unwarranted.

Quote:Bl. Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because he could but because many failed to recognize the singular status of the most perfect human creature God has ever created, Our Lady. They failed to recognize this because they thought all men are immaculately conceived, viz., they denied Original Sin.

Actually, there are many who deny her immaculate conception and adhere to the belief in original sin (Orthodox and Protestants, for instance). Church Fathers, like Augustine, who didn't think of the Blessed Virgin as sinless certainly adhered to original sin and the fall of all men in Adam. There's no logical correlation between denying the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception and the denial of original sin.

Quote:Those in Church Triumphant don't have faith, because they see God face-to-face. Does that make them not Christian?

This is a just a clever cop-out and you know it. I expected more of you, Geremia.

Even in Roman Catholic theology sinning against the faith severs you from the Church while other mortal sins don't. You should know that. It's impossible to belong to the Church - here understood as the earthly community of believers in Christ - without faith.
Reply
#77
I just wanted to point out that St. Thomas went back and forth on the Immaculate Conception:

First, he affirmed it: "Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin." [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

Later, in the Summa, he explicitely denies it: "The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin." [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

Ultimately, though, it seems he accepted it: "For she was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin."[Expositio super salutatione angelica]
Reply
#78
Now just imagine if he went back and forth about Christ's divinity or His atonement on the cross...
Reply
#79
(10-26-2012, 03:20 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Now just imagine if he went back and forth about Christ's divinity or His atonement on the cross...

But Vetus, you know there are things High Church Protestants believe which were settled either before scripture was codified, or after the Apostles were dead and gone (i.e., they believe in doctrines which find their origin not with Scripture). There is room open from the authority Christ established to "guide" the matter. The truth is we don't know the extent of what the Apostles explicitly taught. Silence does not prove that these doctrines do not go back to the Twelve. Furthermore, it is a hard sell that all that pertains to Christ, His Life, and mission, are contained just in the Scriptures. I doubt very much that the intention of God is that we cut and paste 60 AD, but that we go further and further into this relationship with Christ. This is the problem with the static strict view of development, because a Protestant can easily show that these things come much later. That's why you need a living view of dogma, because doctrinal development itself is an organic process. That's what the whole thing means. We can't prove it is the same, because we don't have evidence. What we have is the principles and conclusions which accord from A to Z. It has to be two sided, mutual exchange between Christ and His Church, which does not cease with the Apostles. It is not Revelation, but it is not silence either.
Reply
#80
(10-26-2012, 02:11 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 01:30 AM)Geremia Wrote: Your entire argument assumes Revelation is restricted to Scripture (this is the Protestant sola scriptura); Revelation is also found in Tradition.

Tradition has no definite boundaries or content. The Roman magisterium can pull anything off from Tradition and claim it to be divinely revealed even if there's no scriptural or historical backing for it. That's what happened with the Assumption, for instance.
Yes, because She has the God-given authority to do so.

All that the Church teaches comes from Tradition or Scripture:
"Vatican I" Wrote:6. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us

The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

The Church does not pull truths out of the air. Christ has committed them to her care.  Because we believe that Christ founded the Church we trust in her interpretation of Scripture and Tradition (and what truths belong to them) more than our own. Unlike the protestants, we do not stand in judgement and determine by our own great intelligence and assiduous study what things come from Scripture and Tradition.

Note the reference to unwritten tradition.  I think this refers not only to Scripture but to the written works of the early Fathers. The truth of the Assumption was very likely carried forward by the common people even if it was not written about by the great fathers.  Christ has given the Church the knowledge and authority to teach what was indeed in oral tradition, even if we cannot find early written evidence now. We can find written evidence in later centuries.

God knows why the Assumption was not explicitly taught earlier.  The time might just not have been right to do so.  Veneration of Mary does not take away from Christ, but not everything needs or ought to be taught all at once.

Weren't the Apostles Christians before the Ascension? But they couldn't believe in the Ascension before it occurred. And Catholics weren't required by faith to believe in the Assumption until it was taught. In the Church at the time of the Apostles there were surely many truths from Scriptures that Christians did not know until they were taught. We have the same teaching Church now as then.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)