Timocrates said:  "You're not the Pope."

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Are you?  As I pointed out, Pope Innocent III settled the matter infallibly in 1215.  In 1302, in the Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII elaborated infallibly on Innocent III's declaration:  "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".

I stand with the Popes.  Where do you stand? 

Please read the article I linked.

 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The problem here of course is that this makes the limited exposure of mankind as a whole to Christ's message problematic.

Jeremy Taylor:

If that remark was directed at me, I have to confess that I haven't the faintest idea what it means.  I can parse it, but I cannot construe it.  Your use of the word 'problematic' is problematic.  Please rephrase.  

On the assumption that your principal thrust is expressed by "the limited exposure of mankind as a whole to Christ's message", I reply:  Christ's message has reached everyone who could have profited by it.  In the first place, we are told (Acts of the Apostles) that the Apostles preached the Gospel to the whole world.  I certainly believe that --yes, even in, say, China.  So the Gospel reached far more than just a 'limited' part of mankind.  Secondly, St. Paul tells us (I paraphrase) that those who do not have the Gospel preached to them have only their sins to blame.

There is a remarkable statement on this topic from St. Francis Xavier in regard to the Japanese (who had not been evangelized before his arrival in the 1500s).  I'll try to find it.

 

Spiculum wrote:

Jeremy Taylor:

If that remark was directed at me, I have to confess that I haven't the faintest idea what it means.  I can parse it, but I cannot construe it.  Your use of the word 'problematic' is problematic.  Please rephrase.  

On the assumption that your principal thrust is expressed by "the limited exposure of mankind as a whole to Christ's message", I reply:  Christ's message has reached everyone who could have profited by it.  In the first place, we are told (Acts of the Apostles) that the Apostles preached the Gospel to the whole world.  I certainly believe that --yes, even in, say, China.  So the Gospel reached far more than just a 'limited' part of mankind.  Secondly, St. Paul tells us (I paraphrase) that those who do not have the Gospel preached to them have only their sins to blame.

There is a remarkable statement on this topic from St. Francis Xavier in regard to the Japanese (who had not been evangelized before his arrival in the 1500s).  I'll try to find it.

 

I thought my meaning was quite clear. Yes, I was referring to the fact that the gospel never reached many societies in human history.

The argument you put forward, frankly, seems to be deeply implausible. Not only does it seem entirely ad hoc, but it just doesn't make sense. Aren't we all sinners? And why would anyone looking at the broad sweep of human societies, which are after all made of many different individuals of different levels of wisdom and virtue, think that those who heard the gospel were necessarily, or even generally, better than those who did not?  
 

Johannes wrote:

St. Thomas Aquinas touches indirectly this issue in ST I-II, q.89, a.6, Resp.:

"But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2089.htm#article6
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS089.html#FSQ89A6THEP1

St. Thomas is talking here of an unbaptized child, as a baptized child has already received the remission of original sin at baptism. This shows that the doctrine in Vatican II is no modernist invention.

Regarding the authority of the Catechism, the passages which quote from magisterial documents (from Popes, Ecumenical Councils, etc.) have the original authority of the quoted documents, and the other passages have the authority of a CDF document approved by the Pope. The first part of what I said is obvious, and the second is clear if we recall who was in charge of the CDF and of the redaction of the Catechism, and the way CDF documents and the Catechism were approved by the Pope. (To note, the only CDF document I know of which was not just "approved" but "ratified and confirmed" "with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority" by a Pope is the 2000 Declaration "Dominus Iesus", which deals with the subject under discussion in sections 20-22.)

Thank you Johannes. That all makes perfect sense.

Spiculum wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Timocrates, you do not seem to understand what a Dogma is.  The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary of 1965 defines a Dogma as "A truth of faith or morals authoritatively proposed by the Church as revealed by God and requiring the belief of the faithful."  Dogmas are defined for our belief, not for our 'massaging'

Your arrogance and presumption has blinded you.

Spiculum wrote:

TDogmas are laid down so as to END debate, not enkindle it.

That is idiotic. Theology starts with dogma and from that basis further dogmas are determined. 

Spiculum wrote:

TPlease try to grasp that point.

Please don't be so full of yourself.