Which of the points of the Syllabus of Errors are defunct because of Vatican II?
#21
(05-16-2017, 03:44 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I don't meant to give offense, but your questions remind me of the Sadducees who tried to undermine the dogma of the resurrection by coming up with the question of what would happen to the woman who had seven husbands. One should not invent hypothetical cases to undermine the dogma no salvation outside the Church. EENS has been infallibly defined in very clear wording at least three times.

No offense taken.

Let me clarify my motives for these questions. I am currently in private instruction and should be received into the Church within the next few months. I have a genuine interest in understanding what this means and how it is applied practically. Besides simply enjoying the study and recognizing the spiritual benefit from a more explicit knowledge of the Faith, I also want to know how to answer those who may ask (not a theoretical, I have experienced this line of questioning​ before).

Could you direct me to the three sources you alluded to? Honestly, this is one of those points of doctrine where the current human element seems to be failing in the Church. Why? Because there seems to be a lack of clarity in the way in which it is presented. The modernist indifference is clearly wrong, but I don't see any evidence that the Magisterium has officially promulgated such an indifference anyway so I'm not interested in an answer that is reducible to accusations of defection in the teaching body of the Church. I seem to be hearing contradiction from different "traditional" sources. I've heard papal quotes (Pius IX maybe?) that seem to indicate that someone can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Where do I get clarity on this?
Reply
#22
(05-16-2017, 05:10 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 03:44 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I don't meant to give offense, but your questions remind me of the Sadducees who tried to undermine the dogma of the resurrection by coming up with the question of what would happen to the woman who had seven husbands. One should not invent hypothetical cases to undermine the dogma no salvation outside the Church. EENS has been infallibly defined in very clear wording at least three times.

No offense taken.

Let me clarify my motives for these questions. I am currently in private instruction and should be received into the Church within the next few months. I have a genuine interest in understanding what this means and how it is applied practically. Besides simply enjoying the study and recognizing the spiritual benefit from a more explicit knowledge of the Faith, I also want to know how to answer those who may ask (not a theoretical, I have experienced this line of questioning​ before).

Could you direct me to the three sources you alluded to? Honestly, this is one of those points of doctrine where the current human element seems to be failing in the Church. Why? Because there seems to be a lack of clarity in the way in which it is presented. The modernist indifference is clearly wrong, but I don't see any evidence that the Magisterium has officially promulgated such an indifference anyway so I'm not interested in an answer that is reducible to accusations of defection in the teaching body of the Church. I seem to be hearing contradiction from different "traditional" sources. I've heard papal quotes (Pius IX maybe?) that seem to indicate that someone can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Where do I get clarity on this?

I am happy to hear you are converting!  I think that when attempting to learn what God has revealed about EENS it is important to know what the Church has taught about the immutability of dogma. Pope St. Pius X wrote in The Oath Againt Modernism: "I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." What the orthodox Fathers believed on EENS can be looked at here http://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html

The First Vatican Council (Vatican 1) taught: "that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

Pope Paul VI, when discussing the authority or lack thereof of the Vatican II documents, said that Vatican II differed from other councils in that it was pastoral in nature and refrained from making any dogmatic definitions that are of themselves infallible. In saying such, Pope Paul VI was acknowledging that at other councils dogmatic definitions have been made that are of themselves infallible. Look to the dogmatic ecumenical councils if you want to know what God has revealed about EENS.

Quote:Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved"

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."


'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#23
(05-16-2017, 04:25 PM)Etimasia Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 03:44 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I don't meant to give offense, but your questions remind me of the Sadducees who tried to undermine the dogma of the resurrection by coming up with the question of what would happen to the woman who had seven husbands. One should not invent hypothetical cases to undermine the dogma no salvation outside the Church. EENS has been infallibly defined in very clear wording at least three times.

But in the Gospel, the Lord gives the question a straight answer (that the question is irrelevant because there is no marriage after the resurrection). There's no implication that it's a bad question or shouldn't be asked. He just tells them they're ignorant and explains.

The first thing Our Lord did when responding to the Sadducees was correct their presumption. He said, "But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead..." The Sadducees presumed that both the woman and all of the seven men who had her were going to be saved. Our Lord said, "But they that shall be accounted worthy" to remind them and us that many will be found unworthy of heaven. This is important when discussing EENS because people who say that the "invincibly ignorant" can be saved without coming to an explicit faith in the necessary mysteries and without being baptized ultimately hold heretical views as regards the Church's teachings on merit and worthiness. It is a dogma of the faith that no man can merit the initial grace of justification. This is the reason why no man is allowed baptize himself. Man has to recognize his dependence on God to provide a minister to baptize him. This is so that no man attributes his salvation to solely his own efforts. It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept. No man is allowed to baptize himself with water in order that he is forced to recognize his dependence on God's grace and so that he does not think that the initial grace of justification is something he merited. Notice how those who speak of "invincible ignorance" and "baptism of desire" think that men can be found worthy of heaven by solely their own efforts. They have no need of the Church, the sacraments, or devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Bread of Life means nothing to such people.
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#24
(05-16-2017, 08:22 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: ...it is important to know what the Church has taught about the immutability of dogma...

Indeed, this is a big part of why I am entering the Church. I know that dogma itself cannot change, and that the Church will never formally defect from its teaching, yet there is no doubt whatsoever that the Church's dogmas have, at several times and for a number of reasons, been temporarily subjected to partial obscurity, even for those who tenaciously seek the Truth; I am not saying that the full Truth is not available, only that it has been more difficult to ascertain at particular times.

How do we reconcile your quotes with the following?

Quote:It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
- Quanto conficiamur moerore (Pope Pius IX)

Was Pius IX just flat wrong or am I reading him incorrectly? It would seem he is flatly contradicting Pope Innocent III and the Council of Florence who appear to be saying there is absolutely no hope for you unless you are visibly and fully united to the Catholic Church. What am I missing?
Reply
#25
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept.

I thought Saint Dismas made it to Paradise because of Baptism of Desire?
Reply
#26
St. Camillus, say you're an elderly person and you want Baptism. A priest has been called in to baptize you in your room of the nursing home. Your earthly life is gently ebbing away. You say prayers as you look at a crucifix you recently bought, eagerly looking forward to the moment the priest comes and gives you Baptism. By the time the priest arrives, you've died in your bed.

What is offensive about the concept of this man being saved despite not being baptized in water? God is not bound by His Sacraments.
Reply
#27
(05-16-2017, 10:28 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept.

I thought Saint Dismas made it to Paradise because of Baptism of Desire?

Baptism was not necessary for salvation before Pentecost. St. Dismas died before Pentecost and went to the Limbo of the Just, which became a paradise in a sense when Our Lord descended there.
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#28
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: This is important when discussing EENS because people who say that the "invincibly ignorant" can be saved without coming to an explicit faith in the necessary mysteries and without being baptized ultimately hold heretical views as regards the Church's teachings on merit and worthiness. It is a dogma of the faith that no man can merit the initial grace of justification.

But no one is saying that they merit salvation in any case due to Invincible Ignorance. They (may) receive salvation in the end DESPITE their ignorance.
Reply
#29
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept.
Please explain why Trent and Thomas Aquinas support Baptism of Desire and you do not:

Quote:"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter."
Reply
#30
(05-16-2017, 10:35 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: This is important when discussing EENS because people who say that the "invincibly ignorant" can be saved without coming to an explicit faith in the necessary mysteries and without being baptized ultimately hold heretical views as regards the Church's teachings on merit and worthiness. It is a dogma of the faith that no man can merit the initial grace of justification.

But no one is saying that they merit salvation in any case due to Invincible Ignorance. They (may) receive salvation in the end DESPITE their ignorance.

First, I would like to say that the fact that you are converting to the Church and showing an interest in traditional Catholicism is a sign that you are cooperating with grace and being docile to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost. I respect you for that and hope that you don't take my theological critiques as a sign that I have ill will towards you or anything. St. Dismas was able to find faith in the divinity of Our Lord at a time when He almost appeared to be only human and your finding faith in the divinity of the Catholic Church at a time when it is all too easy to notice only her human element is not a small thing.

All I have to say regarding invincible ignorance is that I would recommend reading the poster BC's posts in this thread. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that "as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed" (Acts 13:48). I think that some of the quotes that BC shared show that many of the Doctors of the Church and other saints believed that God does not predestine any of the elect to die outside of the faith.
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)