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.
G
Genesis315
Guest
That’s not what is being said there. The presentation of dogma is almost always geared to the pastoral needs of the time. Implicit points are made explicit when they are needed to be made so for the good of the Church. Various points are emphasized when there is a special need to. For example, the precise Christology we now know was developed to serve the souls of the people at the time who were confronted with questions concerning Christology. Likewise, the most recent Marian dogmas were proclaimed and precisely defined when they were in order to increase Marian devotion. These are all pastoral decisions. These weren’t invented truths, but they were proclaimed and explained in the time and way they were in response to the needs of the Church.From the ITC report:
So the decision was made and the theological commission set out to “explain” it?
The commission was instructed to study the salvation of unbaptized infants in light of pastoral reasons…a pastoral presentation is subject to doctrine and to be conformed to it; it is at the service of doctrine. Doctrine cannot be at the service of “pastoral reasons”. To say otherwise is Modernist and is explained here in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 13:
This isn’t the same as the modernist assertion that dogmas are created or changed by the ever changing consciousness of the masses and then ratified by the Magisterium, but the Magisterium does respond to the needs of the Church. St. Pius X’s encyclical is a perfect of example of how truths can be explained a certain way for pastoral reasons.
S
SFD
Guest
What makes you think this is not considered necessary? No one can be saved without supernatural Faith.As I said, I have read both documents in their entirety. I did not say they were supporting indifferentism but only that they supported the idea of “invincible ignorance”. Which they do. And which there is no support from tradition for. The traditional view is that God would either send a preacher, or an internal inspiration such that at least the basic absolutely necessary truths of Faith could be known.
The quote came right from Pius IX himself in Singulari Quidem.
Do disagree with anything below?
The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. And whereas invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. Those who failed to clamber aboard Noah’s Ark were all drowned in the Flood, irrespective of whether this failure was due to invincible ignorance or not. Does it follow that God will punish by deprival of salvation those who were guilty of no sin by their failure to join the Church? It does not. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the duty to enter the Church, but faithfully obeys the dictates of conscience, will receive the supernatural enlightenment necessary to enable him to make an act of supernatural faith. If he co-operates with actual grace by making this act, he can proceed to the act of hope and the act of charity, thereby acquiring the state of sanctifying grace - supernatural life. In this case he is united with the Catholic Church by desire (which remains partly implicit), for by faith he believes whatever God has revealed (even if he knows very little of what that revelation contains) and by charity he desires to accomplish the will of God (though he does not realise that this implies joining the Catholic Church.)
What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, whereas one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) The existence of a single God
(ii) That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) The triune nature of God
(iv) The Incarnation of God the Son for man’s salvation.
SFD(A minority of recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.)
S
SFD
Guest
And nobody disagrees with this.That’s not what is being said there. The presentation of dogma is almost always geared to the pastoral needs of the time.
And what is that “implicit” point?Implicit points are made explicit when they are needed to be made so for the good of the Church.
You are speaking of defining a truth that has been attacked or is in need of definition for some other reason. What was the reason to effectively call into question children’s limbo?Various points are emphasized when there is a special need to. For example, the precise Christology we now know was developed to serve the souls of the people at the time who were confronted with questions concerning Christology. Likewise, the most recent Marian dogmas were proclaimed and precisely defined when they were in order to increase Marian devotion. These are all pastoral decisions. These weren’t invented truths, but they were proclaimed and explained in the time and way they were in response to the needs of the Church.
Again, what “truth” is being explained here?This isn’t the same as the modernist assertion that dogmas are created or changed by the ever changing consciousness of the masses and then ratified by the Magisterium, but the Magisterium does respond to the needs of the Church. St. Pius X’s encyclical is a perfect of example of how truths can be explained a certain way for pastoral reasons.
SFD
S
Sophie
Guest
Some food for thought:
Consider the recent deliberations of the Roman Catholic Church on the teaching of limbo. Thirty top theologians from around the world recently met at the Vatican to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without having undergone the sacred rite of baptism. Since the Middle Ages, Catholics have believed that such babies go to a state of limbo, where they enjoy what St. Thomas Aquinas termed, “natural happiness” forever. This was in contrast to the opinion of St. Augustine, who believed that these unlucky infant souls would spend eternity in hell.
Though limbo had no real foundation in scripture, and was never official Church doctrine, it has been a major part of the Catholic tradition for centuries. In 1905, Pope Pius X appeared to fully endorse it: “Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either.” Now the great minds of the Church have convened to reconsider the matter.
Can we even conceive of a project more intellectually forlorn than this? Just imagine what these deliberations must be like. Is there the slightest possibility that someone will present evidence indicating the eternal fate of unbaptised children after death? How can an educated person think this anything but a hilarious, terrifying, and unconscionable waste of time? When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolical aura of misspent human energy."
“Letter to a Christian Nation”, Sam Harris
Consider the recent deliberations of the Roman Catholic Church on the teaching of limbo. Thirty top theologians from around the world recently met at the Vatican to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without having undergone the sacred rite of baptism. Since the Middle Ages, Catholics have believed that such babies go to a state of limbo, where they enjoy what St. Thomas Aquinas termed, “natural happiness” forever. This was in contrast to the opinion of St. Augustine, who believed that these unlucky infant souls would spend eternity in hell.
Though limbo had no real foundation in scripture, and was never official Church doctrine, it has been a major part of the Catholic tradition for centuries. In 1905, Pope Pius X appeared to fully endorse it: “Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either.” Now the great minds of the Church have convened to reconsider the matter.
Can we even conceive of a project more intellectually forlorn than this? Just imagine what these deliberations must be like. Is there the slightest possibility that someone will present evidence indicating the eternal fate of unbaptised children after death? How can an educated person think this anything but a hilarious, terrifying, and unconscionable waste of time? When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolical aura of misspent human energy."
“Letter to a Christian Nation”, Sam Harris
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Here is what the Church has to say on Limbo now:
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (CCC 1261)
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (CCC 1261)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.