Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



7/11/2015 10:03 am  #51


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema."  Vatican I, Session 3, Canon 4, Section 3 [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner, Vol. 2, p. 811]

This sure seems relevant to the discussion.

 

7/11/2015 11:05 am  #52


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

sterling wrote:

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema."  Vatican I, Session 3, Canon 4, Section 3 [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner, Vol. 2, p. 811]

This sure seems relevant to the discussion.

Sure it is. And thus far nobody has violated this rule. What people are insisting on is that doctrine and dogma together form an organic whole and unity and are understood in light of each other.

One has to assume that when the Church made these determinations she at the same time was cancelling or denying other Catholic doctrines and beliefs. She did not say so. Investigation into, e.g., the nature of baptism of desire was not suspended after 1215 - otherwise Saint Thomas would not have said what he did, as for instance what was shared by Johannes earlier, which was written after the Lateran Council of 1215.

I would add that from my understanding baptism of desire could not even be said to be a substitute for baptism. That may be part of the confusion. Baptism proper has a character attached to it that is much more permanent and certain than baptism of desire is thought to have. I would therefore argue that they are not understood to be strictly or entirely equivalent.

Further, the sacrament of baptism would also appear to have added or unique graces associated with it and again attached to the character that it really imprints on the soul that is associated with divine protection. The character of baptism seems to afford graces "through thick and thin"; whereas, the baptism of desire would seem much more precariously tied to the human will. That, I think, is more the sense the Church understands it and, indeed, how catechumens are even inclined to perceive baptism. It is something eminently desirable and something yet more than their present state or condition and not merely a kind of formal acknowledgement and formalization of membership in the Church.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 11:06 am)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/11/2015 11:37 am  #53


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Spiculum wrote:

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.

 

It would seem as though we ought to then consider the Popes since (at least) Pius IX to be heretics. Since him, every Pope who has spoken about the issue has disagreed with your strict interpretation. This would entail that we haven't had a Pope since hte 1860s...and that Vatican I and II are invalid. 

Is that what you really want to say?

 

7/11/2015 1:38 pm  #54


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Timocrates brushed off my earlier inquiry about the "perfect charity" required by the 1949 EENS letter. 

The point here is that, according to this letter, perfect charity is an essential requirement of the baptism of desire case.  Contrary to Timocrates' assertion, perfect charity is not just an absence of malvolent intent.  It is the intent to do every single thing necessary for eternal salvation.  

The proponents of  baptism of desire neglect to consider how rare perfect charity would be.  If that be true, then why is this such a major issue?

 

 

7/11/2015 1:45 pm  #55


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

sterling wrote:

Timocrates brushed off my earlier inquiry about the "perfect charity" required by the 1949 EENS letter.

No, he didn't -- any more, by the way, than I said Pope Pius XII "signed" Feeney's excommunication (or the letter, or anything else), although it wasn't you who said I did.

Perhaps you were thinking of me in the present instance and confusing me with Timocrates? (You addressed your inquiry to both of us; he replied, I didn't.) But I didn't brush off your inquiry either; I made clear quite a while back that I didn't intend to discuss the matter further, and I most certainly didn't qualify that statement with unless somebody directs an "inquiry" at me. (I realize the boundaries of "the matter" might be a little vague, but for the record, the inquiry in question falls squarely within them as far as I'm concerned.)

I'm assuming, by the way, that we're talking about the same inquiry. Do I take it correctly that you are also "Richard"? If so, may I respectfully suggest that you either register or at least pick a single screen name and stick with it?

Last edited by Scott (7/11/2015 2:00 pm)

 

7/11/2015 1:56 pm  #56


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

sterling wrote:

Timocrates brushed off my earlier inquiry about the "perfect charity" required by the 1949 EENS letter.

As Scott said, no I did not.

sterling wrote:

...Contrary to Timocrates' assertion, perfect charity is not just an absence of malvolent intent.

So which is it? Did I "brush off" your "earlier enquiry" or did I respond to it and, consequently, you need now assert something "contrary" to what I (apparrently didn't) argue? 

And regardless, nothing you said actually changes what I said. It is not I but you are failing to read your own proof text and trying to make it say more than it actually does. The text you provided clearly specified it was talking about the desire for membership in the Church - that's it. That desire, the text says, cannot just be any desire but must be animated by "perfect charity." Anything more is just you going beyond the text and asserting your own private opinion, which consequently would require other authorities than the text provided to give it merit.

sterling wrote:

The proponents of  baptism of desire neglect to consider how rare perfect charity would be.

This is just you begging the question AGAIN.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 2:04 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/11/2015 2:01 pm  #57


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Furthermore,

I would argue that the term "perfect charity" should be interpreted (especially given the date of the letter and its authors) according to Scholastic usage. A perfection in Scholastic usage is not necessarily something eminently ideal like a Platonic Form might be. When proper to something's nature, having a body can be said to be a perfection of that thing, with a body just being a capacity for extension in all directions (I believe that is more or less Saint Thomas's definition of body). Anything that meets that definition is thus perfect as a body; and has a bodily perfection. Similarly, perfect charity need not be thought of as, e.g., heroic charity.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 2:04 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/11/2015 3:00 pm  #58


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Alexander wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Furthermore,

I would argue that the term "perfect charity" should be interpreted (especially given the date of the letter and its authors) according to Scholastic usage. A perfection in Scholastic usage is not necessarily something eminently ideal like a Platonic Form might be. When proper to something's nature, having a body can be said to be a perfection of that thing, with a body just being a capacity for extension in all directions (I believe that is more or less Saint Thomas's definition of body). Anything that meets that definition is thus perfect as a body; and has a bodily perfection. Similarly, perfect charity need not be thought of as, e.g., heroic charity.

Sympathetic as I am to your side of the argument, I don't find this point in particular convincing - if only because it seems to make the term "perfect charity" redundant. Charity is perfect in itself, if you interpret "perfect" according to Scholastic usage. That said, I don't think "heroic charity" is a likely interpretation either. Perhaps "pure charity" or "charity not significantly mixed with lower motivations" would be a possible interpretation?

Besides, I'm not sure the debate over meaning is necessary. Even if we allow sterling's understanding - "the intent to do every single thing necessary for eternal salvation" - there is no reason to suppose this is very rare. The intent to do everything necessary for salvation is, I believe, present implicitly in anyone who desires salvation at all, except in cases where the desire is sufficiently vague or weak as to be practically absent. So we can run an argument even allowing sterling's interpretation (which is not to say that his interpretation is correct).

I would say that I think perfect charity could be interpeted or understood as charity in no wise vitiated. We could rephrase the question to be "what renders charity imperfect"?

I believe this from Saint Thomas might be relevant:

"I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 2,3) not every love has the character of friendship, but that love which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love someone so as to wish good to him. If, however, we do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or the like), it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of concupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having friendship for wine or for a horse.Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication.Accordingly, since there is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication, of which it is written (1 Corinthians 1:9): "God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man for God."
- http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm (Article 1).

This text would seem to vindicate my assertion that perfect charity would rule out such things as malevolent intent. But to be sure, it also requires something more than merely an absence of ill-will or even just a generic good-will, such as well-wishing another.

I think then that perfect charity would be authentic friendship with God and His Church. We could therefore see more practically that whatever lacks this lacks the necessary charity. Frendship desires not only the goodness of the other both also association and communication with that other. Thus, a desire to be a member of the Church without the desire to associate and communicate with the Church would likely render the desire insufficient. So it is not merely even "well-wishing" the Church that would suffice as this fails to suffice even for friendship; but it requires good-will towards God and His Church with a positive desire for, as I have said, associating and communicating with the Church. The desire, e.g., to participate at Mass would be pretty good proof, in my mind, that this desire has been satisfied; and especially the desire to receive Communion.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 3:03 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/12/2015 9:42 pm  #59


Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

By perfect charity, I suspect all that is meant in this concept is essentially that one has achieved the state of Christian Perfection, which, minimally, is the state of sanctification one is in when they are free from guilt of all mortal, but not necessarily all venial, sin. From there, one is in varying degrees of Christian Perfection inasmuch as they are free from venial sins and have conformed their hearts to the love of God.

The terminology comes from a mash-up of different biblical verses, stuff like 1 John 4:18 and Matthew 5:48, amongst a plethora of others. It is pretty much the central concept of Methodist theology, as elucidated in Wesley’s “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection”, but it is by no means original to Wesley; some version of the doctrine of Christian Perfection is part and parcel with the concept of theosis, which in my book is essential to Christianity.

The cathecism states:

IV. CHRISTIAN HOLINESS
2012 "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified."64
2013 "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66
In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67
2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called "mystical" because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments - "the holy mysteries" - and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all.
2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.68 Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes:
He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.69
2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the "blessed hope" of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the "holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."71
 
 
 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum