Invincible ignorance/material heresy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian777 said:
(PSi found this in my search, and im placing it here as an aside…this is to show that arguing over this might not be the best thing we could do…regardless of what we believe on this subject, we all can agree that anyone who believes this** ( jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm** ) is in grave error, heresy, and may be headed for damnation.** perhaps we should be refuting this**, instead of refuting each other on a point of doctrine that can be validly disagreed upon in its particulars, but not in its essence, which is exactly what the above link does not accept…just food for thought.)
Click to expand...
I suggest you start the thread. But the items are rather numerous so better start with 2 or 3 at the most.
 
Hi again, Benedictus,
Besides, the problem with the confusion in the OP arouse from a misunderstanding of the encyclical. No one has brought up that one yet, and that is a point that needs to be made.
Click to expand...
It definitely was addressed in post #94, but this is a very long thread and it is difficult for newcomers to know what previously transpired.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6702786&postcount=94

Thanks for reinforcing it again, though - it is appreciated. 🙂
 
Sirach2 said:
Hi again, Benedictus,

It definitely was addressed in post #94, but this is a very long thread and it is difficult for newcomers to know what previously transpired.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6702786&postcount=94

Thanks for reinforcing it again, though - it is appreciated. 🙂
Click to expand...
“A very long thread”? How about threads with 1000 postings? Benedictus raised a very interesting point and it is important to examine this subject. I hope Brian will join in.

Cinette:)
 
Sirach2 said:
Hi again, Benedictus,

It definitely was addressed in post #94, but this is a very long thread and it is difficult for newcomers to know what previously transpired.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6702786&postcount=94

Thanks for reinforcing it again, though - it is appreciated. 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Sirach,

I just had a read of your post 94 and you did give a brief part of the preceeding paragraph with this quote
  1. They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it
Click to expand...
. And so they arrive at life’s end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion, "
But even with this added information, one could still think that the persons being referred to here are those who do not know anything about Christianity at all. The reason I posted the larger quote was to emphasize that the people being referred to here are Christians; not pagans or people from any other religion.

It is important to point out that the Pope is not saying that just because you are not Christian you are automatically doomed.
 
Cinette,
Yes, I cannot even fathom how anyone new to a thread would read up to 1000 posts to see whether or not their point had been addressed previously, or to expand and clarify it further, perhaps. For me, anything over 50 posts is difficult and time consuming.
 
Benedictus,
No doubt about it, the fuller context is always better, but sometimes brevity makes an exact point so that we don’t lose the reader in details. Since my post was already somewhat lengthly with other points, that’s why I gave the link.

If anything was worthwhile in this thread, it was seeing our seminarian friend embrace the correct understanding.

Love your signature!
 
Sirach2 said:
Benedictus,

No doubt about it, the fuller context is always better, but sometimes brevity makes an exact point so that we don’t lose the reader in details. Since my post was already somewhat lengthly with other points, that’s why I gave the link.

If anything was worthwhile in this thread, it was seeing our seminarian friend embrace the correct understanding.

Love your signature!
Click to expand...
I didn’t know he is a seminarian. May God always guide Him by His Holy Spirit. May He always be faithful to Christ and His Church. We need lots of good priests faithful to the Magisterium.
 
AnneElliot said:
You need to read Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you haven’t already. He is talking about Fidei Depositum when he wrote the sentence I quoted above.

Yes, I’ve read Fidei Depositum, it’s at the beginning of my copy of the CCC.

Do you deny that the teachings in the CCC derive their authority from elsewhere, outside the Catechism?
Click to expand...
I have read it, thanks. It’s wonderful.

Of course I agree that the teachings of the CCC derive their authority from outside the CCC.

That is completely different than saying that the CCC is not authoritative (which is what I believe you were saying, or at least implying…please correct me if I’m wrong).

If you are going to argue that there is only ONE way of understanding authority, then it’s simple. All authority comes from God, right? So whatever one believes God has authorized one to do or believe is ok.

In that instance, one can claim that God inspires the Church, or the Bible, or your horoscope, or your own personal divine inspiration, and no one can argue with it because it came from God, the sole source of authority.

The problem with that view in the Catholic Christian tradition is that God inspired people (plural) and God called people to form a Church ( community) and it’s in that community (which is human and fallible) that God promised truth and salvation. So, this community God called together has established ways of ordering itself, of proclaiming the Good News, and of teaching truth. Like the Catechism.
 
diggerdomer said:
I have read it, thanks. It’s wonderful.

Of course I agree that the teachings of the CCC derive their authority from outside the CCC.

That is completely different than saying that the CCC is not authoritative (which is what I believe you were saying, or at least implying…please correct me if I’m wrong).
Click to expand...
As (then) Cardinal Ratzinger says in the book, the CCC is authoritative as a whole.

I’m not a Protestant. I accept the authority of the Church. Since you agree that the teachings of the CCC derive their authority from outside the CCC; then you should see my position on BOD/BOB as acceptable since there are no official declarations outside the CCC requiring the assent of faith. I would drop everything and submit the instant the Church declared either BOD/BOB (or both) to be binding on the faithful.

Until then, it is permissible, and well within reason (of faith) to believe that God would grant persons the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, even if it required a miracle. I’m not saying (and have never said) that God can’t save anyone. I maintain that God can save whomever He pleases, and that He would, in His Divine Providence grant them Sacramental Baptism before their death.

You can’t prove BOB/BOD. There are no documented cases. It’s a waste of time to even consider it; no one can rely on BOD/BOB. You can’t go tell someone, “oh, don’t worry, baptism of desire/blood will save you”

Yet I can start giving you plenty of examples of miracles where Saints raised the dead in order to allow them to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and/or Sacramental absolution so that they could be saved.
 
Pope Blessed JP II promulgated the CCC and declared it correct and required teaching; his declaration itself is infallible, therefor it is not incorrect teaching.
 
AnneElliot said:
As (then) Cardinal Ratzinger says in the book, the CCC is authoritative as a whole.

I’m not a Protestant. I accept the authority of the Church. Since you agree that the teachings of the CCC derive their authority from outside the CCC; then you should see my position on BOD/BOB as acceptable since there are no official declarations outside the CCC requiring the assent of faith. I would drop everything and submit the instant the Church declared either BOD/BOB (or both) to be binding on the faithful.

Until then, it is permissible, and well within reason (of faith) to believe that God would grant persons the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, even if it required a miracle. I’m not saying (and have never said) that God can’t save anyone. I maintain that God can save whomever He pleases, and that He would, in His Divine Providence grant them Sacramental Baptism before their death.

You can’t prove BOB/BOD. There are no documented cases. It’s a waste of time to even consider it; no one can rely on BOD/BOB. You can’t go tell someone, “oh, don’t worry, baptism of desire/blood will save you”

Yet I can start giving you plenty of examples of miracles where Saints raised the dead in order to allow them to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and/or Sacramental absolution so that they could be saved.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I’m ignorant, but what is BOD? BOB?
 
Aramis said:
Pope Blessed JP II promulgated the CCC and declared it correct and required teaching; his declaration itself is infallible, therefor it is not incorrect teaching.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution that promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an exercise of infallible teaching.

Do you have a reference that suggests otherwise?
 
diggerdomer said:
I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution that promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an exercise of infallible teaching.

Do you have a reference that suggests otherwise?
Click to expand...
It’s a ex-cathedra teaching on faith. Therefore papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I applies.
 
Aramis said:
It’s a ex-cathedra teaching on faith. Therefore papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I applies.
Click to expand...
Where does the Catholic Church teach that an Apostolic Constitution (and this one in particular) is an “ex cathedra teaching”? Are you saying all Apostolic Constitutions are by their nature “ex cathedra”? If so…again…Catholic teaching reference for this claim? Thanks.
 
Aramis said:
Pope Blessed JP II promulgated the CCC and declared it correct and required teaching; his declaration itself is infallible, therefor it is not incorrect teaching.
Click to expand...
So then you disagree with (then) Cardinal Ratzinger when he said the teachings within the CCC receive no other authority than that which they already possess? (BTW, when he said this in his book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church he had just quoted Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution promulgating the CCC)
 
AnneElliot said:
Yet I can start giving you plenty of examples of miracles where Saints raised the dead in order to allow them to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and/or Sacramental absolution so that they could be saved.
Click to expand...
Wow, I’d really like to see this if you can provide links or something. That sounds really cool! 🙂
I love reading stories about the Saints!
 
jam070406 said:
Wow, I’d really like to see this if you can provide links or something. That sounds really cool! 🙂
I love reading stories about the Saints!
Click to expand...
Better than a link… I have a book!

If you can find a copy of Fr. Albert Hebert’s book Raised from the Dead… or it’s been re-released under the title Saints Who Raised the Dead, it’s FULL of details from the lives of Saints who raised the dead (for various reasons, including the ones I mentioned).

Actually, TAN is running a sale and it’s only $10 right now. tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/253/keywords/saints+raised/

Here’s a sample:
A 15-year-old boy named Charles, who attended the Oratory of Don Bosco, was dying. He called for Don Bosco, but the priest was away. So the parents called another priest, who heard the boy’s confession. But still the boy called for Don Bosco before he died.
When the saint returned to Turin and became aware of the death he hurried to the boy’s home, asking, “How is he?” The servant questioned responded clearly: “He is dead 10 or 11 hours!” (One report said 24; perhaps what meant was the length of a day) But Don Bosco said that the boy was “just asleep,” the same words Our Lord had used for Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus. The servant replied that everyone in the house knew the boy was dead and that the doctor had already signed the death certificate.
The servant led Don Bosco to the living room and the sad parents. The mother informed him how Charles had kept calling for him before he died. In the sickroom chamber Don Bosco sent everyone away except the mother and an aunt. The body lay there enshrouded, sewn into a sheet, a white veil over the head, ready for burial. Don Bosco closed the door, prayed a moment, and cried out: “Charles! Rise!”
The body of the boy within the sheet began to move. The tearful mother and aunt watched in awe. The priest tore away the sheet from the body and removed the white veil covering the face. Charles sighed, stirred, and opened his eyes. He stared at his mother and asked her why he was dressed in the now torn shroud. Then he noticed Don Bosco and greeted him happily and thankfully.
The boy told the priest how he had needed him, that out of fear he had not told all in his last confession and that he should now be in Hell. Charles told Don Bosco how he had dreamed he was surrounded by a mob of demons who were about to throw him into the flames of a huge furnace when a beautiful Lady had intervened. She told him, “There is still hope for you, Charles! You have not yet been judged.”
At that moment he had heard Don Bosco ordering him to rise. The mother and aunt left the room as the boy asked to confess. Then, after his confession, Charles cried aloud for all to hear: “Don Bosco has saved me!” All the mourners rushed into the room to see and hear the story. Few noticed that, despite the boy’s liveliness, his body remained deathly cold.
It was a moment when a weighty decision had to be made. The saint remarked on the goodness of God in showing the value of a good confession. But he also asked Charles whether, now that he was ready for Heaven, he would rather go there or remain on earth.
The boy, in the presence of his mother and loved ones, turned his glance away. Tears moistened his eyes. All was quiet expectancy. One can imagine the emotions of it all.
“Don Bosco, I’d rather go to Heaven.” (At times the wisdom of the saints will rub off onto an ordinary mortal!) Then Charles leaned back, closed his eyes, and once again was quiet in death.
Click to expand...
One stillborn baby was born to the wife of a man named Prucet, at Besancon. The husband did not want to believe the baby was dead. He seized the lifeless body and ran with it to the church, where he insisted that it be baptized. But the priest had to tell him that it was undoubtedly dead. The father returned home sadly with his tiny, silent burden.
Perhaps to distract his mind, or to give him some hope in his grief, friends and neighbors encouraged him to take the dead infant to the Poor Clare Monastery and ask for the prayers of the Abbess Colette. The father grasped at this hope and went to the monastery, where Colette, when informed of the story, came to the enclosure grate by the parlor.
Prucet fell on his knees and held out the dead infant in mute appeal. The abbess also fell on her knees and began to pray. The friends who had followed Prucet also crowded into the parlor. At the sight of both the father and the abbess on their knees, and of the dead infant, they all fell silent. Then they too sank to their knees and the men doffed their caps in reverence. After a while Colette arose, stepped back from the grate, took off her veil and had it passed out to the father. She said to him, “Wrap the child up in it, and take it back to the church to be baptized.”
Prucet obeyed with the simplicity of a child. When he and his friends arrived at the church, Prucet again asked the priest to baptize the baby. The poor priest thought Prucet had lost his senses in his grief. But he was shaken when the familiar cry of an infant came out from under the black veil of the abbess. Prucet told the priest what had happened. The priest, fearing that the life might only be temporary, decided not to delay the child’s Baptism for even a moment. “What name?” he asked.
“Colette!”
Click to expand...
There are around 400 accounts of resurrection miracles in the book.
 
AnneElliot said:
Better than a link… I have a book!

If you can find a copy of Fr. Albert Hebert’s book Raised from the Dead… or it’s been re-released under the title Saints Who Raised the Dead, it’s FULL of details from the lives of Saints who raised the dead (for various reasons, including the ones I mentioned).

Actually, TAN is running a sale and it’s only $10 right now. tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/253/keywords/saints+raised/

Here’s a sample:

There are around 400 accounts of resurrection miracles in the book.
Click to expand...
Thanks Anne! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top