J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
One needs to look at the consitent teaching of the Church. The answer is there.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well yes, except that some things are a development in CC, though claiming to come from a consistency.One needs to look at the consitent teaching of the Church. The answer is there.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Development ≠ innovation. You see innovation with Luther and Calvin, not development.Well yes, except that some things are a development in CC, though claiming to come from a consistency.
M
mcq72
Guest
And the judgement of that, whether development crosses over to innovation, is in the eyes of the beholder. I mean Calvin was not to far off from Augustine.Development ≠ innovation
The church is most consistent when she is apostolic. The reformers wanted to strip away developments and revert more fundamentally to what apostles taught and did. That in itself was “new” by the reformers in their time.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
And that’s the point, isn’t it? And should we know by nature that the Catholic Church is the one true Church?We are born with brains and intellect. We should know some things by nature. Even with grace we are still dunderheads most of the time.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salvis is a truth. And the Church expands on that truth in the catechism:Extra ecclesiam nulla salvis isn’t a pass.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
Again, she affirms that knowledge is a central key to culpability. In real life this is simply and truthfully the way it works-involving criteria for God’s judgment of us-and there really shouldn’t even be any argument over the matter IMO.
If a person knows that the CC is the Church God established for our salvation, presuming first of all that they know there’s a God and they know their need for salvation and they know Jesus Christ is the way that God has provided, and they reject that Church in spite of this knowledge then they would be guilty of rejecting God, Himself. This is not some mere head-knowledge that some other human has reported to you; this is when you know it’s true, for yourself. And part of the reason that we’re here, rather than in Eden where everything was basically handed to man, is to help us learn these truths for ourselves, the hard way, the truth that God exists and that we need Him, that God desires only the very best for man, that God has provided a Way-and a Church-to bring us back to Him, the God whom Adam dismissed for all practical purposes. We’re here to learn how wrong Adam was. And that understanding involves a process, and growth, necessarily.
If a person doesn’t yet understand this distinction then I’d venture to say that they could quite possibly leave the Church without much culpability.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
We know by grace. And said Catholics who leave have this grace don’t they? Or otherwise are you saying God withheld this grace from them?And should we know by nature that the Catholic Church is the one true Church?
You can’t be saved if you leave Christ’s fold.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Augustine affirmed that humans need to cooperate with God. Calvin did not. So close and yet so far.I mean Calvin was not to far off from Augustine.
By creating their own doctrine that was not what the Apostles taught?The reformers wanted to strip away developments and revert more fundamentally to what apostles taught and did. That in itself was “new” by the reformers in their time.
F
fhansen
Guest
We’re still here to learn as well. Adam possessed much grace, but not informed by wisdom apparently. And we all come from differing backgrounds and experience, different levels of intelligence, knowledge, maturity, exposure to family role models for better or worse, etc. God, I believe, takes all this and more into account.
For myself as a “revert” I can only consider that I’m a much stronger Catholic than I would’ve been otherwise and in any case that was my path. That’s not to suggest that everyone needs to take the same path. But there’s a basic honesty we all benefit from regarding the truth of “where we are” in terms of knowledge and faith. And presumably none of us have “arrived” yet, or possess all the knowledge and conviction that we can and should have, say, five or ten years down the road from now.
God is patient, God is kind, and He continues to work in and through those who believe in and love Him. He desires all to come to the one Church that He established and yet He knows, as He speaks to us through His church, that it’s a messy world, made messier yet by the so called Reformation, and that many of His children are under the same roof whether they know it or not, even if not fully “on the grid” at any one point in time.
For myself as a “revert” I can only consider that I’m a much stronger Catholic than I would’ve been otherwise and in any case that was my path. That’s not to suggest that everyone needs to take the same path. But there’s a basic honesty we all benefit from regarding the truth of “where we are” in terms of knowledge and faith. And presumably none of us have “arrived” yet, or possess all the knowledge and conviction that we can and should have, say, five or ten years down the road from now.
God is patient, God is kind, and He continues to work in and through those who believe in and love Him. He desires all to come to the one Church that He established and yet He knows, as He speaks to us through His church, that it’s a messy world, made messier yet by the so called Reformation, and that many of His children are under the same roof whether they know it or not, even if not fully “on the grid” at any one point in time.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
No. Adam decided it was better to listen to Eve and the serpent than to God.Adam possessed much grace, but not informed by wisdom apparently.
We still have a whole lifetime of God’s patience. If we don’t do what he said, it’s our fault.And we all come from differing backgrounds and experience, different levels of intelligence, knowledge, maturity, exposure to family role models for better or worse, etc.
That’s no excuse to go backwards.And presumably none of us have “arrived” yet, or possess all the knowledge and conviction that we can and should have, say, five or ten years down the road from now.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Maybe, not sure,might depend on what stage of his long development on some of these issues, spanning a decade or twoAugustine affirmed that humans need to cooperate with God.
M
mcq72
Guest
I think we all garner and develop doctrine from same deposit of fairh they left us.creating their own doctrine that was not what the Apostles taught?
F
fhansen
Guest
Um. yes??? And?? I bet he’s changed his mind by now!No. Adam decided it was better to listen to Eve and the serpent than to God.
Yep, and it may take a lifetime for some to come into that obedience. And obedience isn’t a static thing to begin with but something we grow in, as we become more convicted. Anselm, I believe, said that Adam sinned because he willed to sin; that’s about as far as we can take it. We’re here to learn not to will to sin-and why. Love of God is the essence and motivator of true obedience. At the end of the day I’d prefer to stand in front of God in possession of that love and its fruits than attend Mass everyday and lack it. That reminds me of the parable of the two sons, one who says yes but isn’t really doing God’s will while the other says no and then does it anyway.We still have a whole lifetime of God’s patience. If we don’t do what he said, it’s our fault.
Life and the people around us present all kinds of possible “forwards”’; there are multiple voices and opinions out there, as there were for Adam in Eden. We don’t possess perfect wisdom and the wisdom of others doesn’t necessarily rub off on us just because it’s true- we need to learn for ourselves.That’s no excuse to go backwards.
Some people remain in the Church because of cultural reasons and/or fear that it might teach the truth. If their motivation remains there, then they really don’t know God much. The best course of action for a human, to put it simply, is to be a member of God’s one Church and to love well, aided by that Church with the knowledge and grace that she offers. Ignorance, abuse, scandal or traumatic experiences associated with the Church, etc may keep someone on the outer edges of it but, if they love God well, they’re not far off. Ultimately by that faith and love He will lead all to His Church, time and opportunity allowing. Consider that the good thief on the cross didn’t even have the opportunity for Baptism. Otherwise as the Church teaches, again,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."
continued:
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
continued:
Speaking of our faith in general and all ways that it applies to our relationship with God, the following, some of it posted previously in this thread, apply here IMO:
29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
Speaking of our faith in general and all ways that it applies to our relationship with God, the following, some of it posted previously in this thread, apply here IMO:
29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
F
fhansen
Guest
I think I’d sum things up this way: As a 17 year old cradle Catholic who nonetheless lacked the knowledge, conviction, regarding the Church, I would’ve been much less culpable for leaving it than I would’ve been at 45 years old, because of what I knew then, or now, knowing even more. As a 17 year old I acted on truth, the honest truth that I had, which was, simply, that I didn’t know. And that admission was- ironically?- a first step in my coming to know. I wonder how many times St Monica instructed her son about the truth of the faith and the Church, and yet it took 30 years…
Last edited:
W
WillC
Guest
That definitely seems to be the first step in knowledge. Thats how I’ve come to believe it in my short life. Learn that you are unlearned.And that admission was- ironically?- a first step in my coming to know.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
For all your posturing about Augustine you can’t say Calvin said that.Maybe, not sure,might depend on what stage of his long development on some of these issues, spanning a decade or two
In your case, you glean from people who went out and deselected parts of the Gospel.I think we all garner and develop doctrine from same deposit of fairh they left us.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
All I hear is excuses for sin.Life and the people around us present all kinds of possible “forwards”’; there are multiple voices and opinions out there, as there were for Adam in Eden. We don’t possess perfect wisdom and the wisdom of others doesn’t necessarily rub off on us just because it’s true- we need to learn for ourselves
Keep it plain: no matter what one hears, they make the conscious choice to sin.
Jesus told His Apostles to fear. Also you exclude God revealing Himself to those said people.Some people remain in the Church because of cultural reasons and/or fear that it might teach the truth. If their motivation remains there, then they really don’t know God much.
F
fhansen
Guest
Sure, and if you know the definition of sin and culpability then you know that knowledge is an ingredient. I don’t understand why you cannot admit that many things need to be learned the hard way in this life regardless of what anyone else teaches us; we’d be gullible otherwise and our “knowledge” would be shallow, worthless-but once real, personal, knowledge is obtained then culpability is increased.Keep it plain: no matter what one hears, they make the conscious choice to sin.
I think, at this point, you’re arguing with yourself and Church teachings. I’ve related the truth as I know-and have experienced-it to be, supported by Scripture and the catechism. I’d advise giving it more time-and prayer. Fear is good-as a starting point. But often fear, itself, is based on ignorance, and that’s the plight of the over-scrupulous or legalists among us-they seldom come to a real knowledge of God, to a knowledge that produces the love that diminishes- or “casts out”- fear (1 John 4:18). We must be open to God revealing Himself.Jesus told His Apostles to fear. Also you exclude God revealing Himself to those said people.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Culpability is lessened with knowledge. But a sin is still a sin.Sure, and if you know the definition of sin and culpability then you know that knowledge is an ingredient.
You’re still skirting the issue.
My beef is with you making a case for those who leave the Church.I think, at this point, you’re arguing with yourself and Church teachings.
And on the converse, a person with no fear of God, can and will be swayed. The fear of the Lord is the foundation of wisdom, and easily one of the most underrated of the gifts of the Spirit.Fear is good-as a starting point. But often fear, itself, is based on ignorance,
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
I’m not skirting the issue. I’m addressing and acknowledging the very practical point and teaching that, while the sin remains sin, culpability for it varies. And you’re saying that knowledge is obtained by the mere fact of someone telling me that such and such is true and I’m saying that is not the way it works, especially in matters concerning supernatural truths.Culpability is lessened with knowledge. But a sin is still a sin.
You’re still skirting the issue.
Even as grace may well be present too, God does not overwhelm the will with grace; grace is resistible. More time and experience may be in order for it to all fall in place. Meanwhile would God necessarily send that wayward Catholic to hell if they died without returning to the Church? It depends, on what the person really knows to be the truth of the matter.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.