I don't know if I believe in the Catholic Chruch anymore :Infallibility
#31
(05-20-2016, 07:08 AM)brogan Wrote: That statement by Pope Pius IX clearly contradicts earlier statements ...

All 3 statements can't be infallible ...

Brogan,

We're back to the same problem I expressed earlier. You are trying to fit all of this into your understanding -- to reduce it all to your own judgement, instead of spending the effort to try to reconcile what may seem contradictory.

Are you really saying that since Singulari Quidem thousands of reputable and very intelligent theologians have not seen what you so obviously now understand?

I don't think myself that capable and well-studied to be able to make that kind of judgement -- that men far smarter and holier than I could have made those kind of errors when the Church was in no widespread theological crisis.

Your approach to these documents is too univocal. You are not a theologian. Yet you're willing to think you understand more than good theologians. You want to distill it all down into enough so you can judge it and have metaphysical certainty.

That's the problem.

If you're willing to soften up and realize that there are things beyond which you can understand, perhaps you can start to actually understand and not just caricature.
Reply
#32
(05-20-2016, 07:08 AM)brogan Wrote: [quote='Vox Clamantis' pid='1315520' dateline='1463735570']

My take on EENS is that of Lefebvre, which I'll include at the bottom of this post. Bottom line:  God knows who belongs to His Church and who doesn't. We're supposed to do what He's told us to do, which is to love Him and our neighbor, to do His Will, to preach the Gospel, etc.

Lefebvre is following the teaching of Pope Pius IX from the mid 1800s. In his encyclical SINGULARI QUIDEM he said "Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

That statement by Pope Pius IX clearly contradicts earlier statements:

Quote:Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Quote:Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441):
"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; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Quote:All 3 statements can't be infallible.But according to Vatican I, all three statements have to be infallible. Pope Pius IX's teaching of "unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control" contradicts the earlier infallible statements on the issue.

That's not what Vatican I said.  You could cite it and make that argument on how you're doing that.  There have only been two ex cathedra statements since.  It was must be clearly enunciated going forward.  Going backwards, there has and will be some debate on which statements are infallible and which are not. 


Reply
#33
(05-20-2016, 09:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-20-2016, 03:10 AM)Melkite Wrote: Supernatural faith is something that has to be given to you by God, right?  Like, it's not something you can just foster on your own?

Right. But you can still ask God for it.

It is infused at God's good pleasure even without Baptism (for instance it's a pre-requisite for conversion if you're above the age of reason), but certainly infused at Baptism.

It is only lost when one sins against the Faith. Even when one has lost the State of Grace, (and thus infused Charity), Faith and Hope still remain, although in a "uninformed" or "dead" state, but even one in a state of grave sin can still profess the Faith and trust that God will fulfill what he has promised to do. Those acts are not in themselves enough to merit, but they can help dispose the soul so it will more easily follow the grace of God when he sends the grace to confess or make a perfect act of contrition.

That first point, however, is important. David Berlinski, that really smart guy in "Expelled", when asked why he was still an "agnostic" despite more or less defending Creationists claims, and accepting the possibility and even likliness of the existence of the God (as understood by the Catholic Faith), he said, something along the lines of "God hasn't given me Faith yet".

Perhaps, true, but if we don't ask for it ... God wants us to ask, even for what is necessary for our salvation. He will always give what is sufficient, but perhaps it will be highly conditioned on our asking for it.

So, would it be accurate to say that supernatural faith is essentially an act of predestination?
Reply
#34
(05-20-2016, 12:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-20-2016, 09:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-20-2016, 03:10 AM)Melkite Wrote: Supernatural faith is something that has to be given to you by God, right?  Like, it's not something you can just foster on your own?

Right. But you can still ask God for it.

It is infused at God's good pleasure even without Baptism (for instance it's a pre-requisite for conversion if you're above the age of reason), but certainly infused at Baptism.

It is only lost when one sins against the Faith. Even when one has lost the State of Grace, (and thus infused Charity), Faith and Hope still remain, although in a "uninformed" or "dead" state, but even one in a state of grave sin can still profess the Faith and trust that God will fulfill what he has promised to do. Those acts are not in themselves enough to merit, but they can help dispose the soul so it will more easily follow the grace of God when he sends the grace to confess or make a perfect act of contrition.

That first point, however, is important. David Berlinski, that really smart guy in "Expelled", when asked why he was still an "agnostic" despite more or less defending Creationists claims, and accepting the possibility and even likliness of the existence of the God (as understood by the Catholic Faith), he said, something along the lines of "God hasn't given me Faith yet".

Perhaps, true, but if we don't ask for it ... God wants us to ask, even for what is necessary for our salvation. He will always give what is sufficient, but perhaps it will be highly conditioned on our asking for it.

So, would it be accurate to say that supernatural faith is essentially an act of predestination?

No.  Even if God knows what choice you'll make, He is not making you choose it.
Reply
#35
I second Magister's comment.

Since literacy has become the norm in the first world, an unintended consequence is a heightened overestimation of one's intellectual capacities in manifold fields that actually require extensive specialized training, theology and philosophy being two of them. The internet exacerbates this illusion because of the immediate proliferation of information. But information without understanding in its classical sense is meaningless.

The OP must realize that he holds certain presuppositions that not only require deep justification but that, if fleshed out both on the emotional and intellectual levels, will prove to be highly problematic. Just as an example, people often complain that they cannot understand how God allows evil, and many who struggle grasping this intellectual notion come from emotionally troubled backgrounds, such as abusive upbringing. There is a confusion of two related but different matters.

One last point: we must always remember that it is the Magisterium that provides the authoritative and proper interpretation of Her pronouncements, not us. And if several texts are proposed that seem in contradiction, we must wait on the Church to make a final say. Our own interpretations of texts, even those apparently straightforward, are utterly meaningless, for it was not us that God invested with divine authority to make such interpretations. It was His Church alone. As Magister says, to try to fit these statements into a framework that itself requires justification (and truly seems unjustifiable to me) is going to end only in problems.

A great example from the history of philosophy is the mind-body problem. How does the mind and body interact? Well this is problem only when one assumes that matter and mind are complete and separate substances that must fit within narrow definitions and functions as Descartes arbitrarily did. Contemporary philosophers still suffer from that assumption... But Aristotelian-Thomists do not have any such problem, not even in principle could it arise.
Reply
#36
To Brogan:

You identified (part of) the fallacies of sedevacantism, as well as a problem with the SSPX.  Your mistake was in seeking them, though.  Since 1988, there has been another option....

There is another way, though...  consider the idea that the Mass wasn't fully appreciated or that the Church wasn't completely healthy in the decades before the Council.  Since the chaos of the French Revolution had settled down, then with the World Wars and Cold War annihilating generations of young men and turning the established world order on its head, there was a sense that something wasn't quite right...  vocations had already significantly diminished by the late 19th century (the justification St. Pius X used for the then unprecedented reform of the Breviary, discarding millennia of ancient tradition, on the sole basis of Papal authority).  All of the Council Fathers saw an iceberg approaching and were trying to steer the barque of St. Peter's away from it. 

In hindsight, it's obvious they did much to... diminish the faith, but who can honestly said things wouldn't have been bad had they done nothing?  As bad or worse?  Now we're talking about degree...  Abp. Lefebvre signed all of the documents.  Many perfectly orthodox paragons of tradition, such as Abp. Sheen saw a great renewal there...  Certainly most of us here would agree we're off course and would have the Holy Father put her back on course...

Don't believe the lies of the atheists.  For some of your questions, there are answers.  There is logical proof for the existence of God, see the Summa.  Similarly, theologians ponder  many of the questions you have.  Point by point isn't going to solve your issue, though, especially those with mistaken premises.  You can trivialize and make known history sound silly with the deliberate use adjectives as you do.  Ultimately, you've lost faith in the institution. Suffice it to say that Catholics do not believe the Church was created by men, but by Our Lord upon the men he personally instructed, the Apostles, who passed on what they learned at His feet to their own disciples in unbroken succession bishop to bishop to this very day.  The expression of faith was never intended to be completely uniform.  Mother Church has allowed numerous expressions in the west as long as they don't disagree on the substance.  We can disagree over detail and can debate them with charity until He comes again.  If you don't believe the core premise,  you'll find plenty of nits to pick... consider St. Anselm of Canterbury:  "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam."  At St. Augustine said, believe so that you may understand.

Indeed, use your intellect and the grace to search for Truth, which is God.  There's a wealth of material out there.  You don't have to discard tradition to embrace communion with the Holy Father and all those who passed before. They're not mutually exclusive. 

It's not just the ancient world, though. horrible things still take place, including slavery and child sacrifice (abortion).  People have free will and the evils of others have always been able to hurt those who did no wrong by themselves.  Too many of your questions are predicated on the premise that this life is all that there is and there is no purpose.  Every one of us will feel pain and leave this world in  much the same as we entered.  The where, when, why, and how are details.  God made you to love and serve Him in this life and be with him in the next.  This faith is a marathon, not a sprint.  Don't give up.  Keep the faith and finish the race. 
Reply
#37
I disagree with the OP that the statement of Pius IX is in contradiction with Tradition. Even after Pius IX made that statement, many theologians held to the explicit view of faith and the statement itself can, in my opinion, be read to support either the implicit or explicit view. There is also the argument to be made that not even the implicit view is actually contrary to Tradition, provided it is interpreted n the right way.

I am not sure if I agree with the idea that we cannot understand the Truth from what previous popes and councils have said because such an understanding would involve us having to do the interpreting. This seems to be the case for two reasons. Ultimately, "interpretation" is required for everything including even understanding the current magisterium. If one claims that interpretation is not necessary than that would not even allow us to understand the current magisterium and such a conclusion seems false. Therefore interpretation is necessary. Secondly, it is clearly possible to see the Truth from what the Church has said since many saints and Church Fathers have done so before. They have looked at Tradition through studying it and they have come to an understanding of what the Tradition on the matter says. Not even only saints have done this; there are many ordinary theologians who have done this too. While it is certainly necessary to do a very balanced and thorough study of the matter, I think saying that we cannot understand Tradition from the past sayings of Saints and Church fathers is more a modern Ultramontanist view of things than anything else. What such a view reminds me of is the view of St. Ignatius of Loyola that he would believe that what is white is actually black if the Pope told him so.
Reply
#38
I mentioned my wanting to tell my story here a few days/weeks ago. Some of it I can.
I was adopted, and raised by two people whom I believe now were just trying to save their marriage when they adopted me. I say this not as a judgement, but as an observation. I was hurt at a very young age by one of them, and really both because I was not protected. Now.
I loved life, and God and my parents. When I got older , I realized I was adopted (found the papers) and suffered abuse AND hit puberty all in about the same week. Seriously.
I left God. I had many of the same arguments you speak of. I am going to go back and read this thread. But.
I hit a bottom in Life. A true pit inside. I believe God showed me where I was going , a preview if you will. It was nothing I saw, although certain senses were operative. I was empty inside. I had run as far as I could as long as I could.
I was given a book called the Way of Divine Love, by Sr. Josefa Menendez. And though I still say I wonder if I really love God, after reading that book, I have not questioned His love for me.
I have wondered though, about the fairness of it all. My Mom and I were just getting around to a point where I could talk with her when she got sick (Dad also) at the same time Mom did. He died, her illness put me through a lot of pain in ways I did not know could happen.
In other words, you are not alone. We are, all of us here on this rock for so short a time.
I say take these thoughts you wrote down to God, preferably in an adoration chapel, and let Him have it.
I will say it like this to God often. Is it theologically correct? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it, a proper way to speak to God? I don't know, again I am not a theologian.
But.
In my broken heart, that wanted family and never married. Never had a son or a daughter or parents that truly nurtured and destroyed my trust at such a young age...in that place...I know God has held on to me. It is the only explanation I have for why I am here.
Pray for the Church, our souls. All of us, the good and the bad. We need it so much now, the world is in great crisis.
And ask God, for me...ask God to help those that believe as I once did, who believe that no one cares or gives a damn for them. Ask God to watch over them. That is MY prayer.
Reply
#39
Since others have answered your other questions, I'll tackle your comment about humanity getting revelation after 195,000 years and dinosaurs being millions of years old.

Simply Impossible. Scientific evidence contradicts your assertion. This sounds like a bold statement until you take an honest look at the evidence.

Search on this website for the old Creation or evolution threads started by others.Our God is not the God of Death. He didn't create then destroy dinosaurs/dragons before man was created. There are cave paintings/hirocglyphics/bas reliefs of dinosaurs created by man. How could men create these things all over the world if men never saw them? There are accounts all over the world of dragons being seen and killed. Alexander the Great being one of them. Please take a good look at these things, don't censor yourself as many do.

Please consult the Catholic Kolbe Center for the study of Creation. I now know the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. Archaeologists continue making discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible. Be aware of well funded characters/professors/archeologists/scientists perverting evidence to fit into their anti-christ ideologies. Consider that piltdown man was a proven fake and Nebraska man was not a man and his family but was simply a pig's tooth. I won't exhaust the examples in this post.

If you want to know how to read scripture and see the providence of God throughout history and how he has preserved the True Religion, go to a book called the Continuity of Religion 206pgs by  Bisshop Bossuet.

Oh, and why not hear how there is evidence the earth is after all in the Center of the Universe from Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis and his film "The Principle". The Church was right, Galileo was wrong.




Reply
#40
No thank you Texas, I'm not looking to read a bunch of fringe pseudoscientific nonsense. I believe in modern medicine and I wear clothes made out of synthetic fibers. I fly on airplanes and talk on my smartphone. I'm typing on a laptop right now. Science is amazing and trust worthy. The best evidence we have now points to 200,000 years of humanity and dinosaurs millions of years ago.

After reading more about salvation I'm not sure what I think anymore. I can't say so definitively that "Only Catholics can be saved" was really what the old church taught. Unless we would call all the people who had the movement of the holy spirit and sanctifying grace in their hearts through baptism of desire "Catholics".  It's a very confusing topic.

It seems the Church has taught the absolute necessity of baptism but also that that baptism could come just from an inner act of grace in the heart. So a protestant who is baptized and does not commit a mortal sin and trys to live by his faith exactly is basically a member of the Catholic Church. (And a muslim who has not committed a mortal sin and responds to grace and gives his life fully to God has experienced Baptism by desire and is also a Catholic?)

It's a complicated issue but I think I was being too hasty in framing the argument the way I did before. In the past day of reading I am no longer at all convinced that infallibility is provably false. I guess I'm not a heretic anymore. I'm just totally confused about what the Church actually teaches on this issue.

But I don't understand the entire discussion of who can be saved. In some cases popes and saints are saying that people are damned by their ignorance. In other places the church teaches they are not damned by their ignorance. St. Thomas said the ignorance was a punishment for original sin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)