All heathens to Hell?

[deMontfort]

As I said before, Thomism is a permissible school of thought within Catholicism. So is Molinism. Both are acceptable but the church has endorsed neither and posts from Rad Trad blogs aren’t going to change that.

See Congregatio de Auxiliis

 

[pianistclare]

From the USCCB website:

What is the purpose of the Catechism?
The Catechism serves several important functions:

It conveys the essential and fundamental content of Catholic faith and morals in a complete and summary way.
It is a point of reference for national and diocesan catechisms.
It is a positive, objective and declarative exposition of Catholic doctrine.
It is intended to assist those who have the duty to catechize, namely promoters and teachers of catechesis.

The Catechism is a “point of reference” primarily for the development of national and local catechisms. For example, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults was adapted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In addition to the new adult catechism, Catholics in the United States ordinarily depend on catechetical materials that present what the Church believes, teaches, lives and prays in a comprehensive and systematic manner within a process that spans many years. The Catechism is a “point of reference” for the development of these kinds of catechetical programs as well as for catechetical materials that will be revised or developed in the future.

Similar to a Bible commentary or theological dictionary, the Catechism serves as a vital reference work for all those responsible for catechesis.

The Catechism contains the essential and fundamental content of the Catholic faith in a complete and summary way. It presents what Catholics throughout the world believe in common. It presents these truths in a way that facilitates their understanding.

The Catechism presents Catholic doctrine within the context of the Church’s history and tradition. Frequent references to Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the lives and writings of the saints, conciliar and papal documents and liturgical texts enrich the Catechism in a way that is both inviting and challenging.

 

[Gorgias]

This is a valid, and important, observation!

I think that, if we’re discussing Christ’s words as recorded in the Gospels, it’s important to think about the dynamics of audience in the context of the spoken word.

I mean, if I stand up in front of the general assembly of the U.N. and say “few will gain admission to the Super Bowl”, they’d look at me and shrug and say, “well… yeah; we represent over 7 billion people, and the U.S. Bank Stadium doesn’t hold 70k!” On the other hand, if I stand outside the stadium and claim “few will gain admission!”… then that’s a completely different kind of statement, wouldn’t you say?

So, the question becomes: what was Christ’s intent when He said this? All of humanity, throughout all of time? Or, perhaps, all of those under the Mosaic covenant? Or maybe just all of those in His audience?

I’m not going to claim an answer here. I’m just setting out a question: if we’re dealing with “few”, in the numerator… what’s the denominator?

The fact that the traditional teaching of the Church is that few are saved would seem to strongly imply that the majority are in fact culpable, which is why they will not be saved.

Yep, that’s fair. But, if we’re looking at the subset of folks who we might want to claim as invincibly ignorant – which is the set of folks that I believe (name removed by moderator) was talking about – then we can’t necessarily claim that Christ’s words (or even some saint’s words, centuries later, in the transmission of anecdotes he’s heard!) demonstrate that the invincibly ignorant are few in number.

If there is a persuasive argument that would extend the scope of invincible ignorance beyond the Church’s traditional understanding, then I will be glad to hear it, but if it exists, I have not yet encountered it.

What if the argument isn’t for the extension of the scope of the invincibly ignorant, but rather, the contraction of the scope of those who have been baptized…?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. Another descriptor for such a person is “catechumen”.

 

[Gorgias]

You know what Pope Benedict said about the claims of those who claimed a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture, don’t you…?

 

[Gorgias]

Well, given that the subtle little attack of your claims is that everyone who doesn’t agree with you misunderstands doctrine…

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, the inability to discern the authoritative teaching of the magisterium is what’s mind-boggling in this thread…

 

[Gorgias]

But the mere fact that his writings have had the tacit approval of the Church for centuries ipso facto makes it more authoritative than the Catechism.
[/quote]

Right. ‘Cause the tacit approval of Aquinas’ teachings is more convincing than the explicit approval of the Catechism?

 

[pianistclare]

Agreed.
Vat II is legit, and binding.
Naysayers are just trying to stir the pot.

Archbishop Muller is the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the same job Cardinal Ratzinger held before he became pope.

Here is his explanation of Vatican II being “pastoral” as reported by the National Catholic Register:

Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?

The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.

Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.

 

[Gorgias]

The Catechism is official teaching, but so are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas: Ite ad Thomam Institute: Pope St. Pius X on the Philosophy of St. Thomas
[/quote]
Two thoughts:

• First: Context, context, context:
  “Motu Proprio for Italy and the adjacent islands, to encourage the study of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in Catholic Schools.”
  The question is merely “should Aquinas be studied in Catholic schools in Italy and the adjacent islands?” And naturally, the response is ‘yes!’
• Second: I’m shocked. I mean… are you suggesting that Pius X agreed with Aquinas in Aquinas’ assertion that Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately?

 

[Gorgias]

That’s a reasonable train of thought.

However, this group of folks aren’t the same group who are discussed in Lumen gentium. That latter group is much larger…

 

[Gorgias]

The one that, apparently, you are. The one that speaks to “few” being saved.

If that’s the context, then our discussion is really just about the size and constituency of the denominator…

 

[Gorgias]

Re-read your Summa, then. In ST III.27.2, Thomas asserts, “I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons.”

He states (in article 1) that she was sanctified in the womb prior to her birth, but clarifies, in article 2, that this did not happen at conception (but rather, happened at ‘animation’).

We can give Aquinas a pass, of course, since he did not have the biological knowledge of human reproduction that we do. His theology was sound… but he did, in fact, make the claim that you assert he did not.

 

[angel12]

Isn’t it, though? Jesus’ love and mercy were shocking 2000 years ago, and they continue to shock today.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I read it. And, contrary to the author…

Possibly the briefest way to deal with such nonsense is to ask the armchair expert if they could kindly explain what St Thomas DID teach on this doctrine. Embarrassing silence is the usual response.

… “embarrassing silence” isn’t what I’m offering.

I submit that the average layman, if presented with this, would assert that it was a perfect summation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

If, that is, one holds to the assertion that there are two distinct moments: ‘conception’ and ‘animation’. Thomas thought there were. He was, from a biological perspective, mistaken. Given this mistake, it’s reasonable to conclude that, if he knew this biological fact, he would have agreed with the assertion of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. He didn’t know it. And therefore, although he agreed with Mary’s Immaculate Animation, he did not concur with what later became Church dogma.

But hey… nice try.

 

[twf]

You’re ignoring the fact that Pope St John Paul II declares the Catechism to be a “sure norm” and promulgated it by his authority to be used in all the Churches. It was also very much the fruit of the collective teaching of the college of bishops at that time.

 

[twf]

One small correction- Cardinal Mueller is no longer Prefect. Archbishop Frerrer is the current Prefect.

 

[pianistclare]

Yes, it was an old post. But worth repeating Thank you friend!

 

[Gorgias]

No, but it would be preferable.
[/quote]
LOL!

Yeah… when one has no reasonable response, then wishing his interlocutor would just go away is a common reaction.

I fail to see how this line of inquiry is relevant to the subject of the thread, nor why you brought it up in the first place

Actually, you brought it up, by asserting that Aquinas was the “official teaching of the Church”, in post 134.

so I’ll bow out here, if you don’t mind.

Fair enough. Peace.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, you might benefit from an honest reading of Lumen gentium. It makes the same point you’re making here – that we, as Catholics, must evangelize the world – even the non-Catholic Christian world!

However, what the Church teaches isn’t that, while evangelizing the world, we should presume they’re all bound for hell if they don’t listen to us.

And if we continue to find explanations to justify some sort of vague “hope of salvation” for them

… then what we’re really doing is agreeing with what Mother Church teaches us. It might be inconvenient for you to admit this… but it is what the magisterium teaches.