Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Identity of God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I am not specifically referring to Boniface or any one pope or other person of authority. I am referring to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. As for Pope Francis, he has not been around long enough, and I have to wait and see. Nonetheless it is unlikely that Pope Francis will not and likely cannot change the Doctrine and Dogma of the church.
    You were previously speaking of Boniface, although I understand why you don't want to anymore.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The vagueness and nebulous of these statements takes it out of the consideration of heresy, and no I do not consider it a fundamental teaching of the Roman Church. I have no problem with salvation outside the Roman Church as defined by Vatican II, and other relevant church documents.
    Sorry, but a papal encyclical is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you consider it to be or not.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      You were previously speaking of Boniface, although I understand why you don't want to anymore.
      No problem talking about Boniface.

      Sorry, but a papal encyclical is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you consider it to be or not.
      Not in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No problem talking about Boniface.

        Not in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.
        In your opinion and in the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists who accuse the last six popes of heresy. You may not consider them heretical but I am inclined to accept their interpretation (and that of well respected Cardinals and periti at Vatican II) of church doctrine over yours.

        See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

        "Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          In your opinion and in the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists who accuse the last six popes of heresy. You may not consider them heretical but I am inclined to accept their interpretation (and that of well respected Cardinals and periti at Vatican II) of church doctrine over yours.
          I already stated clearly that I reject Feeneyism. Please in the future cite me accurately and not with venom and derision.

          [quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

          "Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."[/QUOTE]

          Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            I already stated clearly that I reject Feeneyism. Please in the future cite me accurately and not with venom and derision.

            [quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

            "Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."

            Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.
            Frank, there was no venom or derision in my words. I acknowledged here that you do not accuse the most recent popes as heretical, but you do in fact believe, as do also the Feeneyites and other traditionalists, that the view expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. This is your opinion. It is also the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists. That is all I was saying here. You yourself cited a Feeneyite as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." Like you, not all Feeneyites accuse the recent popes of heresy. You are free to differentiate yourself from Feeneyites however you wish, and I am in no way contesting this. But I am only following your lead in noting the points you share in common with Feeneyites and other traditionalists.

            Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...can-be-saved-8
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Frank, there was no venom or derision in my words. I acknowledged here that you do not accuse the most recent popes as heretical, but you do in fact believe, as do also the Feeneyites and other traditionalists, that the view expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. This is your opinion. It is also the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists. That is all I was saying here. You yourself cited a Feeneyite as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." Like you, not all Feeneyites accuse the recent popes of heresy. You are free to differentiate yourself from Feeneyites however you wish, and I am in no way contesting this. But I am only following your lead in noting the points you share in common with Feeneyites and other traditionalists.

              Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...can-be-saved-8
              It is important to put your quote in context of the previous paragraphs, as well as other essays, to realize that Cardinal Dulles was referring to the potential who may be saved. In fact it is important put all of the essays of Cardinal Dulles' to understand his views completely concerning the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church in today's world.


              "We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

              We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

              Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth."

              Cardinal Dulles

              The criteria for who may be saved outside as well as inside the Roman Church remains well defined in the Vatican II and other documents, clarified but not changed. The criteria remains dependent on knowledge and sincerity of the seeker. It is of course a given that as we as mortals cannot know what is ultimately in the heart and soul of any individual, or the ultimate compassion of God concerning who is saved and not saved, but this nonetheless does not change the doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

              The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

              "The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."

              and . . .

              "One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

              The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism.

              It is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 07:00 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                It is important to put your quote in context of the previous paragraphs, as well as other essays, to realize that Cardinal Dulles was referring to the potential who may be saved.
                Yes, the potential to be saved for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, without necessarily converting to Roman Catholicism. This is indeed what we have been discussing. It seems you now agree.

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                In fact it is important put all of the essays of Cardinal Dulles' to understand his views completely concerning the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church in today's world.

                "We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

                We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

                Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth."

                Cardinal Dulles

                The criteria for who may be saved outside as well as inside the Roman Church remains well defined in the Vatican II and other documents, clarified but not changed. The criteria remains dependent on knowledge and sincerity of the seeker. It is of course a given that as we as mortals cannot know what is ultimately in the heart and soul of any individual, or the ultimate compassion of God concerning who is saved and not saved, but this nonetheless does not change the doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

                The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

                "The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."

                and . . .

                "One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

                The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism.
                What exactly do you understand to be Feeneyism?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                It is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas.
                But, as I'm sure you would agree, Baha'i adherents should not misunderstand or misrepresent the teaching of the other religions they look down upon. Is that last part accurate? Is it the case that (some?) Bahai' adherents 'look down upon' other religions? Would you agree that the Baha'i (religion? faith? philosophy?) is also an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine?
                Last edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 07:41 AM.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Yes, the potential to be saved for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, without necessarily converting to Roman Catholicism. This is indeed what we have been discussing. It seems you now agree.
                  Careful. I do not agree with your understanding of these issues. If you read ALL of Cardinal Dulles' essay in context, he does not agree with you either.

                  Vatican II and Cardinal Dulles make explicit and clear statement in this regard that your sidestepping.

                  The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

                  "The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation." and . . .

                  "One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

                  The question as to how salvation 'outside the Roman Church is possible where the 'explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation' is not necessary as defined in Vatican II.


                  What exactly do you understand to be Feeneyism?
                  Feeneyism is a very radical rejection of any Salvation outside the Church. It does not accept Baptism outside the Church, and does not accept for the most part any Salvation outside the Church as defined and clarified in Vatican II. In fact it considers Vatican II as heresy.

                  This statement addresses Fenneyism: 'The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.'



                  But, as I'm sure you would agree, Baha'i adherents should not misunderstand or misrepresent the teaching of the other religions they look down upon.

                  Is that accurate? Is it the case that (some?) Bahai' adherents 'look down upon' other religions, or have I misunderstood?
                  The Baha'i Faith places the different religions and beliefs in higher regard, and a more universal spiritual positive nature then anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity. Your qualification of '(some?) Baha'i adherents' lacks a useable context of what a religion believes. It may be said that (some?) adherents of any religion and belief may believe anything. No context here for further discussion.



                  Would you agree that the Baha'i (religion? faith? philosophy?) is also an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine?
                  Yes, in the context of how Revelation is believed in the Baha'i Faith. ALL our fallible human view of the Divine will always remain a human view of the Divine.

                  This relates to the difference in a fundamental basis of a religion as kataphatic as opposed to an apophatic view of God and the understanding of scripture, Doctrine and Dogma.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 07:59 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Careful. I do not agree with your understanding of these issues. If you read ALL of Cardinal Dulles' essay in context, he does not agree with you either.
                    I certainly do not disagree with Dulles' characterization of Catholic teaching.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Feeneyism is a very radical rejection of any Salvation outside the Church. It does not accept Baptism outside the Church, and does not accept for the most part any Salvation outside the Church as defined and clarified in Vatican II. In fact it considers Vatican II as heresy.
                    Some Feeneyites would disagree with this characterization.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    The Baha'i Faith places the different religions and beliefs in higher regard, and spiritual positive nature then anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity. Your qualification of '(some?) Baha'i adherents' lacks a useable context of what a religion believes. It may be said that (some?) adherents of any religion and belief may believe anything. No context here for further discussion.
                    It is a question asked in such a way as not to be offensive. Do you look down upon other religions? I also think you are underestimating the views of some Roman Catholic theologians.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      I certainly do not disagree with Dulles' characterization of Catholic teaching.
                      I believe I have cited Cardinal Dulles views in his essays in clearer manner then you did referencing one paragraph. The Dogma of the Roman Church concerning salvation remains conditional on 'Sincerity,' 'Desire' and 'Knowledge.'

                      Some Feeneyites would disagree with this characterization.
                      Some? High fog index again.



                      It is a question asked in such a way as not to be offensive. Do you look down upon other religions?
                      bolded: NO! The way you worded this previously lacks context for further discussion. The context of your statement and question needs more context to be remotely a question of true dialogue. HOW are you referring to 'looking down' in a context of Baha'i beliefs?

                      I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal spiritual context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation is offensive, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion.

                      I also think you are underestimating the views of some Roman Catholic theologians.
                      Separate issue. Don't not mix apples and oranges.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 08:24 AM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Source: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt149.html

                        FATHER FEENEY AND THE IMPLICITUM VOTUM ECCLESIAE]

                        by Brian W. Harrison

                        Part A. Who Is In Fact ‘Outside The Church’?

                        Introduction


                        It is now over sixty years since the so-called “Boston Heresy Case” involving Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) shook the U.S. Church and sent more than a few tremors round other parts of the Catholic world. The case eventually influenced the doctrinal teaching of Vatican Council II’s principal document, the 1964 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Dealing with the prospects for eternal salvation of those who are sincerely unaware of the truth of Catholicism, the Council references a rather low-key1 censure of Feeney’s doctrine, sent fifteen years earlier by the Vatican’s Holy Office to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Richard Cushing of Boston.2

                        The key point in this doctrinal ruling was that the ancient dogmatic formula, “No salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)”, must not be understood to exclude from salvation all those who die as non-Catholics (that is, without consciously professing the Roman Catholic faith). The reason is that some of these persons, the Holy Office affirmed, developing Pope Pius XII’s teaching several years earlier in the 1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis,3 may in fact be joined to the true Church by a link – seemingly tenuous, but sufficient for salvation – that consists in a merely implicit and unconscious desire (implicitum votum Ecclesiae) to enter the Catholic fold. This desire, however, will have to be such as includes supernatural acts of faith and charity.4

                        In spite of Vatican II’s footnote confirming this Holy Office decision, the controversy which flared as a result of Fr. Feeney’s severe interpretation of the aforesaid dogma has never really been laid to rest. At least, not in the United States, where small but convinced and articulate groups of Catholics continue to defend and propagate Feeney’s distinctive teaching. This can be adequately summarized in the following proposition postulating two requirements for reaching eternal life:

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I believe I have cited Cardinal Dulles views in his essays in clearer manner then you did referencing on paragraph.
                          Anyone can cite more of his views. I cited only the part that I considered directly relevant to our initial point of discussion, ie, whether or not Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Some?
                          Yes. I already gave you the example of the blogger that you referred to as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." One can always define 'Feeneyite/Feeneyism' differently, which is why I asked you for your definition, but I use the term to include those who agree with Father Feeney's views as they understand and explain them. This may differ from the characterization of his views by others.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          bolded: NO! The way you worded this previously lacks context for further discussion. The context of your statement and question needs more context to be remotely a question of true dialogue. HOW are you referring to 'looking down' in a context of Baha'i beliefs?
                          I purposefully did not want to misrepresent the beliefs of some or all Baha'i adherents and did not even know whether to refer to 'it' as a religion, faith, or philosophy, hence my other question. It is merely an invitation for you to present your own explanation of the Baha'i religion/faith/philosophy and how you may or may not look down upon other religions, however you may want to use/reject/define that phrase. It is fine if you do not want to discuss this. I merely gave you an invitation.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion.
                          I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Separate issue. Don not mix apples and oranges.
                          I think it is a very important issue, and very much related to my perspective on our discussion. You did say "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity." You do not have to discuss this if you do not want to.
                          Last edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 08:49 AM.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

                            "The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."
                            Lest this be misunderstood, it may be helpful to some if I quote more from this essay of my friend, Cardinal Dulles, who agrees with another Cardinal of the Church:
                            "The most sophisticated theological argument against the conviction that some human beings in fact go to hell has been proposed by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?” He rejects the ideas that hell will be emptied at the end of time and that the damned souls and demons will be reconciled with God. He also avoids asserting as a fact that everyone will be saved. But he does say that we have a right and even a duty to hope for the salvation of all, because it is not impossible that even the worst sinners may be moved by God’s grace to repent before they die. He concedes, however, that the opposite is also possible. Since we are able to resist the grace of God, none of us is safe. We must therefore leave the question speculatively open, thinking primarily of the danger in which we ourselves stand.

                            At one point in his book Balthasar incorporates a long quotation from Edith Stein, now Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who defends a position very like Balthasar’s. Since God’s all-merciful love, she says, descends upon everyone, it is probable that this love produces transforming effects in their lives. To the extent that people open themselves to that love, they enter into the realm of redemption. On this ground Stein finds it possible to hope that God’s omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance. Balthasar says that he agrees with Stein.

                            This position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost. But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost."

                            Unhappily, I never met Cardinal Balthasar, who actually died a couple of days prior to the ceremony, but I did read his earlier book. It is worth noting that he was in some disfavor prior to Vatican II but that even after the council he was generally considered among the relatively conservative of the leading Catholic theologians of his time. Avery goes on to cite a statement of John Paul II indicating that he had "at least an openness to the opinion that we may hope for the salvation of all." In his own opinion, "the Pope seems to have shifted his position, adopting in effect that of Balthasar":
                            "Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."

                            Cardinal Dulles goes on to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4)” (CCC §1821). At another point the Catechism declares: “The Church prays that no one should be lost” (CCC §1058).

                            http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...lation-of-hell
                            Last edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 11:12 AM.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Anyone can cite more of his views. I cited only the part that I considered directly relevant to our initial point of discussion, ie, whether or not Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church.
                              I have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church.


                              I purposefully did not want to misrepresent the beliefs of some or all Baha'i adherents and did not even know whether to refer to 'it' as a religion, faith, or philosophy, hence my other question. It is merely an invitation for you to present your own explanation of the Baha'i religion/faith/philosophy and how you may or may not look down upon other religions, however you may want to use/reject/define that phrase. It is fine if you do not want to discuss this. I merely gave you an invitation.
                              First the Baha'i is a religion centered on Mount Carmel in Haifa Israel, which began in 1844 in present day Iran. Second, the derogatory statement is the wrong way to introduce a discussion on the Baha'i. It is relevant to the thread in the vein of the concept od 'What is the Identity of God?' in contrasting religions that have a fundamental kataphatic view of a 'Source' some call God(s) like Christianity, and other religions that are fundamentally apophatic like the Baha'i Faith, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the Vedic traditions of the Brahman. Though in contemporary Buddhism many try to define the absence of the 'Source', ie Zen, and contemporary Hindu beliefs which try to define and animate God(s).

                              I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
                              Exactly what I said, the origin of this accusation has to be from other religions, which object to the Baha'i Faith. It is a justified questions as to why and the origin of this negative phrase and the context of those that believe it.

                              I think it is a very important issue, and very much related to my perspective on our discussion. You did say "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity." You do not have to discuss this if you do not want to.
                              This, "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity, including most other ancient religions like Judaism and Islam." is quite literally true as far as the Doctrine, Dogma, and historical relationships with other religions.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 12:26 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church.
                                So you've been saying all along that Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church?

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                First the Baha'i is a religion centered on Mount Carmel in Haifa Israel, which began in 1844 in present day Iran. Second, the derogatory statement is the wrong way to introduce a discussion on the Baha'i. It is relevant to the thread in the vein of the concept od 'What is the Identity of God?' in contrasting religions that have a fundamental kataphatic view of a 'Source' some call God(s) like Christianity, and other religions that are fundamentally apophatic like the Baha'i Faith, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the Vedic traditions of the Brahman. Though in contemporary Buddhism many try to define the absence of the 'Source', ie Zen, and contemporary Hindu beliefs which try to define and animate God(s).
                                You may begin the discussion any way you like? I asked you if the phrase was accurate? All you have to say is 'no', if it is not accurate?

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Exactly what I said, the origin of this accusation has to be from other religions, which object to the Baha'i Faith. It is a justified questions as to why and the origin of this negative phrase and the context of those that believe it.
                                The origin of what accusation? The idea that Baha'i view other religions as less evolved, from their own perspective that is more evolved? Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent, but I do not view that as an accusation.

                                But I was asking you about your statement: "I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion."

                                Is the accusation you are referring to contained therein?
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X