Salvation outside the church

[DustinsDad]

No Offense? …

Your sophmoric, ill-informed, uneducated, anti-catholic bigoted tales of half-truths and distortions are not worthy of a response other than this: No more pearls for you.

DustinsDad

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That the earth was the center of the universe was theologically defined. They burned people at the stake for not believing it. Even Doctors of the Church light the flames which burned such ‘heretics’.

mgrfin, are you saying that the Church defined as dogma that the earth was the center of the universe? because if this is true I have no choice but to leave the church and find a new religion, as I would lose my faith. Are you SURE of this?

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin, are you saying that the Church defined as dogma that the earth was the center of the universe? because if this is true I have no choice but to leave the church and find a new religion, as I would lose my faith. Are you SURE of this?

No, I don’t think that the Church defined that the earth was the center of the universe.

However, individuals in the Church believed it did. So, how else to explain Robert Bellarmine, who was no slouch when it came to theology put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life for his proposing of the Copernican theory.

And he burned Bruno at the stake as a heretic for believing such. Maybe in those days, burning ‘heretics’ was a Sunday afternoon sport. That Catholic Christians were charred for believing what turned out to be the scientific truth is out of our experience. Fortunately, Christoper Columbus never told them how he got to the ‘new world’ - he didn’t believe the earth was flat, and that the polar star was in the sky and it pointed due north.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

No, I don’t think that the Church defined that the earth was the center of the universe…

Therefore, irrelevant to the discussion.

DD

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, I don’t think that the Church defined that the earth was the center of the universe.

Oh, so you were just being disingenuous? Be careful, if you misrepresent the church’s history like that it could lead people astray

 

[mgrfin]

Oh, so you were just being disingenuous? Be careful, if you misrepresent the church’s history like that it could lead people astray

I beg your pardon. I was not being disingenuous. I did not misrepresent the church’s history. Please read up on the Copernican theory and the Church, and a little on Galileo.

You will see that Columbus has to be ‘crazy’ - that by sailing due west, he would wind up in the east, cause the earth was round.
Such craziness. Such ingenuity - not disingenuousness!

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

"mgrfin:

That the earth was the center of the universe was theologically defined.

mgrfin:

No, I don’t think that the Church defined that the earth was the center of the universe.

I beg your pardon. I was not being disingenuous. I did not misrepresent the church’s history.

 

[mgrfin]

(

Your post is a fine example of taking someone’s quotes out of context.

By doing so, I believe you misrepresented what I said.

I thought we were having a discussion here, not a joust. If this is a ‘gotcha’ thread, I’ll move on.

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Your post is a fine example of taking someone’s quotes out of context.

By doing so, I believe you misrepresented what I said.

I thought we were having a discussion here, not a joust. If this is a ‘gotcha’ thread, I’ll move on.

peace

I’m thinking the same thing about the discussion. It’s almost impossible for me to interpret your line of reasoning in a way that is a sincere search for truth. And apparently it is the same for you. It’s too bad that these discussions don’t bring out truth more often instead of turning to jousting. I don’t like that either.

 

[SFD]

?
A Catholic refers to a papal encyclical and quotes directly from this papal encyclical and then one or two other people on this thread, who have not even read or heard of the encyclical, claim that he is a heretic and that he has anathematised himself.

I said you statement was heretical…not that you were a heretic. It is clear that you misunderstand what that document says and are not making the proper distinctions between disciplines and doctrine.

bobzills:

This has nothing to do with that. I am speaking about my opposition to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

post #820:

This is heretical. An infallible definition cannot be contradicted…by any Catholic for any reason.

Denz. # 1800 (1954 edition)

The Vatican Council I, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Chapter IV, Faith and Reason.

[The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed.]

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.

Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and** there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding** [can. 3]. “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and the wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding”[1]

[1] Instruction of St. Vincent of Lerin, n. 28 [ML 50, 668 (c. 23)].

The above deals with a “recession from that meaning”. The idea of a direct contradiction of defined doctrine is insanity, at best, and you should get this heretical idea out of your head immediately.

SFD

Nowhere did I say you were a heretic.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

I

Nowhere did I say you were a heretic.

SFD

When John Paul II said that what Archbishop Lebrevre did was a schismatic act, he was saying that Archbishop Lefebreve was a schismatic.

His followers like to contend that the Archbishop was not a schismatic. But he was.

In a like manner, when you say that someone has committed an heretical act, you are saying that the individual is a heretic.

You called a spade a spade. Words are hurtful. We should all be careful how we use them.

It would be nice if we would use some of the documents to quote from Vatican II. You don’t see something in “Gaudium et Spes”, or “Lumen Gentium” worth quoting? Is it going to be 150 years before we get the point of the Church in the modern world?

peace

 

[SFD]

In a like manner, when you say that someone has committed an heretical act, you are saying that the individual is a heretic.

Well, mgrfin, that’s because you don’t understand heresy. One may hold a heretical position or idea without pertinacity. They are not heretics at all…just mistaken. Holding a heretical view by mistake or by misunderstanding does not make one a heretic.

Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith. A mistake is never a mortal sin.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Well, mgrfin, that’s because you don’t understand heresy. One may hold a heretical position or idea without pertinacity. They are not heretics at all…just mistaken. Holding a heretical view by mistake or by misunderstanding does not make one a heretic.

Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith. A mistake is never a mortal sin.

SFD

So, what you are saying is that I don’t know what it takes to make a sin ‘mortal’. Where have I shown you this lack of understanding of moral theology?

And as for the canonical sin of heresy, after quoting and defining the contents of canon 751 often on this website, why do you say I don’t understand the meaning of the crime of heresy as an obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith?

The denial or doubt must be born of ‘bad faith’, that is positions taken with full knowledge, deliberate intent, and enduring.

I think I fully understand ‘heresy’, whether as a crime in canon law, or an offense in moral theology.

peace

 

[SFD]

So, what you are saying is that I don’t know what it takes to make a sin ‘mortal’. Where have I shown you this lack of understanding of moral theology?

You were quite confused about the distinction between divine law and ecclesiastical law. You were confused about how the decalogue was divine law.

mgrfin:

SFD:

Based on the above then, Divine law binds ALL.

Right?

SFD

Yes, insofar as someone is not invincibly ignorant of these divine laws. For example, someone might not be aware of the Ten Commandments.

peace

The belows explains the distinctions between divine and human law and the distinction between divine natural and divine positive law:

From Right and Reason by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J. (second edition, 1959):
Fr. Austin Fagothey:

According to their mode of promulgation laws may be natural or positive. The law promulgated through the very nature of the beings it governs is called the natural law. It includes the physical laws as well as the natural moral law. It is customary to call physical laws the laws of nature and to reserve the term natural law for the natural moral law, but this usage is not always kept. Laws promulgated by some external sign of enactment are known as positive laws, so called because they are posited or laid down. They are usually contained in definitely worded statutes or decrees, but this kind of formulation is not strictly necessary. Any legitimate sign of enactment, written, oral, or gestured, that signifies to the subjects that this is the law, is sufficient.

According to their origin laws may be divine or human. Divine laws are those in which God is the lawgiver. Human laws are those made by men. The eternal law and the natural law (both physical and moral) are divine laws. Human laws can be only temporal and positive. However, there can also be divine positive laws,² laws imposed on men by God’s direct intervention and revelation, such as the Ten Commandments. It is true the Commandments are in great part merely statements of the natural law, but the difference between natural law and positive law is not in content but in the mode of promulgation; since they were promulgated by external signs, they are divine positive law. Human law is either ecclesiastical or civil, according as the society which passes the law is the Church or the state.

²Divine positive law is what St. Thomas calls simply divine law. See Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 91, a. 4.

And from Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, I think it is pretty obvious that all natural law has been revealed:
Humanae Generis:

1. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
2. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]

Aside from that, of course, I hardly think the divine law described in can. 1322/2 ("… all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God.") is of the natural law; it looks like divine positive law. That’s why men can be invincibly ignorant of the divine law to embrace the Church but cannot be invincibly ignorant of the divine natural laws…such as the ten commandments.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Aside from that, of course, I hardly think the divine law described in can. 1322/2 ("… all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God.") is of the natural law; it looks like divine positive law. That’s why men can be invincibly ignorant of the divine law to embrace the Church but cannot be invincibly ignorant of the divine natural laws…such as the ten commandments.

SFD

I am not going to bother to answer your post, since you think that "Honor thy father and thy mother’ has been revealed to all mankind as part of Divine Law.

And Canon 1322/2 has been abrogated and no longer exists. So your point is moot.

The post said I didn’t know what was heresy in the Code, and the requirements for commiting the mortal sin of heresy.
You are going on about the natural law, and Humani generis. You are not even on the point.

I don’t think any of the rest of it is worth answering since you seem to be ‘out of date’ regarding the law of the Church, and what is required to answer my post.

BTW, the current Code of Canon Law is available on line on the Vatican site.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, mgrfin, that’s because you don’t understand heresy. One may hold a heretical position or idea without pertinacity. They are not heretics at all…just mistaken.

Correct - sort of. The terms are material heretic or formal heretic.

One is a material heretic if one holds to a teaching on faith/morals that is contrary to Church teaching, yet is unware that what he holds is against Church teaching .

Once the person has been made aware of Church teaching, then if the person continues to hold the material - the person becomes formal heretic, and this is where mortal sin comes into play.

The latter is actually a sin against the first commandment.

DustinsDad

 

[SFD]

I am not going to bother to answer your post, since you think that "Honor thy father and thy mother’ has been revealed to all mankind as part of Divine Law.

I’ve pointed this out before…it appears that you don’t even know the basic catechism.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Called also simply THE COMMANDMENTS, COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, or THE DECALOGUE (Gr. deka, ten, and logos, a word), the Ten Words of Sayings, the latter name generally applied by the Greek Fathers.

The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator’s will in relation to man’s whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity–love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments in the Books of Moses, but the injunctions are distinctly tenfold, and are found almost identical in both sources. The order, too, is the same except for the final prohibitions pronounced against concupiscence, that of Deuteronomy being adopted in preference to Exodus. A confusion, however, exists in the numbering, which is due to a difference of opinion concerning the initial precept on Divine worship.

…]

Another division has been adopted by the English and Helvetian Protestant churches on the authority of Philo Judæus, Josephus, Origen, and others, whereby two Commandments are made to cover the matter of worship, and thus the numbering of the rest is advanced one higher; and the Tenth embraces both the Ninth and Tenth of the Catholic division. It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as to group at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils.

The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: “I am the Lord, thy God. . .” The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

•Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of “graven things” is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).

•Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.

•And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).

•Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).

The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

•His life is the object of the Fifth;

•the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;

•His lawful possessions, of the Seventh;

•his good name, of the Eighth;

•And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;

•And in his property rights by the Tenth.

This legislation expresses not only the Maker’s positive will, but the voice of nature as well–the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men’s souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.

 

[DustinsDad]

When John Paul II said that what Archbishop Lebrevre did was a schismatic act, he was saying that Archbishop Lefebreve was a schismatic.

Maybe, maybe not. Disobediance is not always schism. Lebrevre never denied the authority of the pope as the Church has always understood it and as the Church undertands it today. Lebfevre chose to disobey the directive of the pope claiming the grave necessity of a crisis situation within the Church - but he never denied the pope’s authority.

This would be different than say, a sedevacantist or an Orthodox Church position that would outright deny the pope’s authority as the Church understands it and has always understood it.

I guess an analogy would be a child refusing to listen to mom for some reason or another while still acknowledging her as his mother, and a child who claims the mom is no longer his mom but an imposter.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

I’ve pointed this out before…it appears that you don’t even know the basic catechism.

The Council of Trent:

Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema

The Ten Commandments pertain to Christians. They are not enscribed in the hearts of mankind as Divine law.

 

[SFD]

Correct - sort of. The terms are material heretic or formal heretic.

One is a material heretic if one holds to a teaching on faith/morals that is contrary to Church teaching, yet is unware that what he holds is against Church teaching .

Once the person has been made aware of Church teaching, then if the person continues to hold the material - the person becomes formal heretic, and this is where mortal sin comes into play.

The latter is actually a sin against the first commandment.

DustinsDad

No, this is improper terminology. A “material heretic” is a non-Catholic who holds a heretical position without knowing it. He is one who is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church.

A Catholic who holds a heretical position, but not with pertinacity, is not a heretic at all…he is just in error. He may be holding a “material” element of heresy (the wrong belief) but he is not a “material heretic”.

Dr. Ludwig Ott puts it This way… See p. 311, 3. b.) :

Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is the legal commonwealth of the Church.

“materials heretics” are those protestants who err in good faith.

SFD