Orthodoxy Quiz

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
10.
A. The state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and eternal happiness are entirely impossible.
B. The state of grace is not absolutely necessary at the moment of death; salvation and eternal happiness are nevertheless possible by the mercy of God.
[/quote]
A is correct. Those who die in the state of grace have salvation and eternal happiness. Those who die without the state of grace have eternal damnation. Jesus taught there is no in between.

{25:31} But when the Son of man will have arrived in his majesty, and all the Angels with him, then he will sit upon the seat of his majesty.
{25:32} [b]And all the nations [/b]shall be gathered together before him. And he shall separate them from one another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
{25:33} And he shall station the sheep, indeed, on his right, but the goats on his left.

Pope Pius XII Address to Widwives

Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. [b]Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.[/b]

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
11.
A. An act of love is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace, when formal Baptism is lacking.
B. An act of love is not sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace, when formal Baptism is lacking.
[/quote]
A is correct. This would be a baptism of desire. The act of love would be truly spiritual and selfless in full cooperation with an actual grace. This act of love would be an implicit desire for baptism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church,[b] but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved[/b]. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Pope Pius XII Address to Midwives

Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.[b] An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism[/b];

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[philothea]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305001184' post='2239508']
Here is another nice quote from Veritatis Splendor:

The human act, good according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection when the will actually does order it to God through charity. As the Patron of moral theologians and confessors teaches: "It is not enough to do good works; they need to be done well. For our works to be good and perfect, they must be done for the sole purpose of pleasing God". (n. 78)
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm still pretty much stuck on #1 myself. I have to assume "act" has a technical, philosophical meaning beyond the everyday meaning of "action." This quote kind of implies such, but I'm still not completely clear on the difference.

Whether I pick the red coffee cup or the green coffee cup for my morning tea is both a choice and an action, but it doesn't have any inherent morality that I can discern. And I tried for a long time to figure out the "right" way to make such incidental choices, and wound up scrupulous and depressed.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
12.
A. At the act of consecration by a priest, the substance of bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ.
B. At the act of consecration by a priest, the substance of bread ceases to exist and is replaced by the substance of the body of Christ.
[/quote]
A is correct. The substance of bread is changed, or converted or transformed into the glorified body of Jesus Christ. The substance of bread is not annihilated. Transubstantiation means a substance of one thing is transformed into the substance of another thing. Not one substance is annihilated and replaced by another substance.

Trent

“And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, [b]a conversion [/b]is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; [b]which conversion is[/b], by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”

Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei

“we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through [b]the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body [/b]and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, [b]a unique and truly wonderful conversion [/b]that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation.” (Mysterium Fidei, n. 46).

And to mix things up a bit from the theologian Ludwig Van Ott:

“Transubstantiation signifies a conversion…. Conversion in the passive sense is the transition of one thing into another…. A mere temporal succession does not do justice to the concept of conversion. [b]In the Eucharistic conversion the substances of the bread and wine cease, because they are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ…[/b]. The conversion in the active sense, that is God’s activity in the conversion, does not, according to the general teaching of theologians, consist of two independent actions, the annihilation of the substances of the bread and the wine, and the making present of the body and blood of Christ.” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 380)

[kafka]

[quote name='philothea' timestamp='1305002815' post='2239530']
Yeah, I'm still pretty much stuck on #1 myself. I have to assume "act" has a technical, philosophical meaning beyond the everyday meaning of "action." This quote kind of implies such, but I'm still not completely clear on the difference.

Whether I pick the red coffee cup or the green coffee cup for my morning tea is both a choice and an action, but it doesn't have any inherent morality that I can discern. And I tried for a long time to figure out the "right" way to make such incidental choices, and wound up scrupulous and depressed.
[/quote]
There is never any reason to have scruples or depression. In both instances you are choosing identical moral objects. They are one and the same. To knowingly choose to pick something up and use it for tea is good regardless of its color. Or you might unconsciously pick it up which would not be a moral act like you were getting at. Every overall moral act is a knowing choice of will and intellect. So if you are unconscious of doing something, then it has no moral value in the eyes of God.

here is the way I explained a similar problem in a post from a few months ago here at Phatmass.

Nihil asked me:

What about day-to-day actions that lack any kind of moral aspect? Like the example I used before, do I eat Cheerios or Corn Flakes for breakfast? (For me, neither. I think both are gross.) Now, I understand that the choice itself is a moral good. It is good that we have the choice itself. However, neither is better than the other morally speaking. For the intent of my example, we need to assume that they're both exactly as healthy as the other. So picking Cheerios is morally good, and picking Corn Flakes is morally good. Is the choice between the two not a neutral choice?

I answered:

O.k. so you are basically judging two overall acts with more or less identical intentions, identical moral objects and identical circumstances against one another and saying that it is not better to choose one or the other. Fine but this is not what we mean by morally neutral acts in the above. You are simply comparing the two and judging that it doesnt matter which one I do since all three fonts of morality are basically the same. But each moral object in itself is good in the eyes of God since eating is good (explained above) and each overall act is good granted the intention and circumstance is good, in the eyes of God. Neither of them are morally neutral.

In the above we are talking about one moral object on it's own and/or one overall act on its own. In the eyes of God either the moral object is good or evil. In the eyes of God either the overall act is good or it is evil. Neither can be morally neutral. Each overall act has its own set of three fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances. And all three must be good for the overall act to be good, moral, licit. If one is bad the overall act is evil, illicit, immoral.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
13.
A. The Magisterium teaches that the Virgin Mary suffered temporal death and was raised from the dead, prior to her Assumption.
B. The Magisterium does not teach that the Virgin Mary suffered temporal death and was raised from the dead, prior to her Assumption.
[/quote]
A is correct. The Magisterium non-infallibly teaches this truth. From a theological point of view it is sound and reasonable that Mary, the perfect disciple of Jesus Christ, would die and rise from the dead just as Jesus did. Here are the Magisterial quotes:

Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus:

“In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life.” (n. 14)

"'Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death….'" (n. 17, quoting the Sacramentarium Gregorianum)

"'As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.'"(n. 18, quoting the Byzantine liturgy)

"…this feast [Assumption] shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death….” (n. 20)

"'It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.'"(n. 21, quoting St. John Damascene)

"'…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.'" (n. 22, a quote attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)

“Hence the revered Mother of God…finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven….” (n. 40)

Psalm 3 I think refers to Mary

{3:6} I have slept [died], and I have been stupefied [particular judgment]. But I awakened [rose from the dead] because the Lord has taken me up [assumed into Heaven].

the particular judgment would be a stupifying experience for Mary because she in God how she fully cooperated with every actual grace God gave her throughout her entire life

[philothea]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305004126' post='2239538']
There is never any reason to have scruples or depression. In both instances you are choosing identical moral objects. They are one and the same. To knowingly choose to pick something up and use it for tea is good regardless of its color. Or you might unconsciously pick it up which would not be a moral act like you were getting at. Every overall moral act is a knowing choice of will and intellect. So if you are unconscious of doing something, then it has no moral value in the eyes of God.

here is the way I explained a similar problem in a post from a few months ago here at Phatmass.

Nihil asked me:

What about day-to-day actions that lack any kind of moral aspect? Like the example I used before, do I eat Cheerios or Corn Flakes for breakfast? (For me, neither. I think both are gross.) Now, I understand that the choice itself is a moral good. It is good that we have the choice itself. However, neither is better than the other morally speaking. For the intent of my example, we need to assume that they're both exactly as healthy as the other. So picking Cheerios is morally good, and picking Corn Flakes is morally good. Is the choice between the two not a neutral choice?

I answered:

O.k. so you are basically judging two overall acts with more or less identical intentions, identical moral objects and identical circumstances against one another and saying that it is not better to choose one or the other. Fine but this is not what we mean by morally neutral acts in the above. You are simply comparing the two and judging that it doesnt matter which one I do since all three fonts of morality are basically the same. But each moral object in itself is good in the eyes of God since eating is good (explained above) and each overall act is good granted the intention and circumstance is good, in the eyes of God. Neither of them are morally neutral.

In the above we are talking about one moral object on it's own and/or one overall act on its own. In the eyes of God either the moral object is good or evil. In the eyes of God either the overall act is good or it is evil. Neither can be morally neutral. Each overall act has its own set of three fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances. And all three must be good for the overall act to be good, moral, licit. If one is bad the overall act is evil, illicit, immoral.
[/quote]
Cool beans.

That was what I eventually wound up deciding anyway, because crazily trying to weigh attributes that didn't matter wasn't working out. I like that meaning for "act" a lot.

Thanks! And this quiz is neato.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
Which one is right and why?
14.
A. Speculative theology and philosophy are not relevant to the understanding of faith and the formulation of dogma.
B. Speculative theology and philosophy are important to the understanding of faith and the formulation of dogma.
[/quote]
B is correct. Speculative theology is the drawing out of implicit truths found in Tradition or Scripture and not taught by the Magisterium. Speculative theology supports the Magisterium because the charism of Magisterium is not static, it works in living human persons, with will and intellect, i.e. the Pope and the Bishops. It is important to the understanding of the faith because the life of faith is not lived in a vaccuum. The Church is spread out accross a whole world-age of space and time. The virtues of love-faith-hope are based in the soul which is will and intellect. One cannot live out a life of faith in a fallen, complex, and difficult world without speculative theology and pious opinion. One cannot even explain the faith to another without some use of speculative theology. Everyone who teaches or explains the faith to another uses some speculative theology, because we dont just read a list of Magisterial teachings to the student, and we do not offer one a lack of explanation of Tradition and Scripture.

The life of faith would be absolutely absurd, static, boring, unreasonable, irrelevant, unliveable, and so on ad nauseum if there were no speculative theology. There would be no development of doctrine. There would be no ability to meet the needs of the Faithful. There would be no ability to answer new problems brought about in the world. There would be no ability to reason with Tradition and Scripture. No ability to contemplate. And quite franckly no ability to simply love and enjoy the Faith since we are human persons: we thrive and are fully realized in loving acts which proceed from the will and the intellect (or at least I do).

Speculative theology is absolutely essential in the search for truth and in meditation. Without it there would only be fideism:

Fides et Ratio

[b]Other modes of latent fideism appear in the scant consideration accorded to speculative theology[/b], and in disdain for the classical philosophy from which the terms of both the understanding of faith and the actual formulation of dogma have been drawn.”

Theology is structured as an understanding of faith in the light of a twofold methodological principle: the auditus fidei and the intellectus fidei. With the first, theology makes its own the content of Revelation as this has been gradually expounded in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Church's living Magisterium. [b]With the second, theology seeks to respond through speculative enquiry to the specific demands of disciplined thought.”[/b]

We cannot stop short at experience alone; even if experience does reveal the human being's interiority and spirituality, speculative thinking must penetrate to the spiritual core and the ground from which it rises.”

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
15.
A. Non-infallible expressions of the Magisterium of the Church should be received with religious submission of mind and will.
B. Non-infallible expressions of the Magisterium of the Church must be received with the full assent of faith.
[/quote]
A is correct. Why? Non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium have a limited possibility of error so we cannot give our full assent of Faith to them. This limited possibility of error is never enough to lead one from the path of salvation. And this limited possibility of error is open to some limited development which can be supported by speculative theology and the lives of the Faithful: Living Tradition and Living Scripture.

So when the Pope, in an act of Magisterium, that does not meet the five criteria of Papal Infallibilty, his teaching is non-infallible and open to a limited possibility of error, and we give it our religious submission of mind and will, not our full assent of faith. Religious submission of mind and will is reasonable. We do not treat it as an infallible teaching. And we do not worship it. And we do not make it an idol. And we do not based our entire life of Faith on it. And we do treat the Pope as if he were some constant medium of God. And we do not worship the Magisterium and turn that into an idol, because the Magisterium is a charism effected by God, it is a quality inherent to the Pope and the Bishops. It is not God Himself.

We give our all to the Father in Jesus and in the Spirit.

Gaudium et Spes, n. 25

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Bishops teaching in communion with the Pope also teach non-infallibly. The same religious submission of mind and will go to their expressions, tempered by the same considerations above.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[Laudate_Dominum]

How does this quiz work?

[kafka]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305009506' post='2239565']
How does this quiz work?
[/quote]
You just saw it work.

[kafka]

more orthodoxy quizes by the end of the month. Though I dont think they will be as difficult as this one.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305009811' post='2239566']
You just saw it work.
[/quote]
did I win?

[Lisa]

That was good, but hard.

[TeresaBenedicta]

One of these days I'll find myself with enough to time discuss number 1 with you, Kafka. I disagree and hold that there are indeed morally neutral acts. But unfortunately I don't foresee having enough time until summer to really get into it.