$100 Challenge Rules. Need Help

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just so it's known, I do have more stuff to enter than I've posted here, given not many here like to get academic here. and those that do would rather just overlook these things. such as this from an archbishop in the 1700s...

sure he's just a man. but an archbishop. some one predating feeney by far..

[quote]Q. 7. What then is to be said of all those Turks (Moslems), Jews, and heathens, who having never heard of Jesus Christ or of His Religion, are, therefore, invincibly ignorant of both; can they be saved, if they live and die in that state?

A. The plain answer to this is, that they cannot be saved, that not one of these "can enter the kingdom of God." It is true, as we have seen above, they will not be condemned as criminal, precisely because they have not the Faith of Christ, of which they are invincibly ignorant. But the Faith of Christ, though an essential condition of salvation, is but one condition; others are also required. And though invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from sin, in wanting (i.e., not having) that of which he is invincibly ignorant, yet it is plainly impossible and childish to suppose, that this invincible ignorance in one point will make up for the want of all other conditions required. Now all those we hear speak of are in the state of original sin, "aliens from God, and children of wrath," as the scripture calls all such, and unbaptized; and it is a constant article of the Christian Faith, that, except original sin be washed away by the grace of baptism, there is no salvation; for Christ Himself expressly declares, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Jn. iii.5) And, indeed, if even the children of Christian parents, who die without baptism, cannot go to heaven, how much less can those go there, who, besides being never baptized, are supposed, in the present case, to live and die in ignorance of the True God, or of Jesus Christ and His Faith, and, on that account, must also be supposed to have committed many actual sins themselves. Nay, to suppose that heathens, Turks, or Jews who live and die in that state, can be saved, is to suppose that worshippers of idols, and of Mohammed, and blasphemers of Christ, can be saved in the guilt of original sin, as well as all of those actual crimes by their ignorance, which is putting them upon a better footing, by far, than even Christians themselves and their Children. The fate of all such the scripture decides as follows: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angel of his power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to those who know not God and who obey not the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the Glory of His Power," (2. Thess. i 7) This is precise, indeed, and a clear and decisive answer to the present question[/quote]

Edited May 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

not to respond and thus ruin Bro Adam's challenge thread with a tangent... but... well, that's exactly what I'm doing lol.

the challenge explicitly asks for things which fall under the charism of infallibility, of course, which the teaching of one archbishop does not do.

anyway, when it comes to things like that that are so high up and seem so officially taught: I say this: Catholics are still totally free to believe that. No one is required to believe that people who are invincibly ignorant ARE saved, but that they may be possibly saved through some unknown means. inculpable ignorance does not beaver dam, invincible ignorance might (if one were culpable for it), but when someone comes into a state of not being deemed culpable of something damnable, that doesn't mean they get a free ticket to the beatific vision.

personally, I don't have much of a problem with what this archbishop said here. he made clear he was just giving "the plain answer"; ie the simple, unnuanced truth of what is most likely to be expected on the Day of Judgement for Muslims and pagans. nowadays we like to revel in the overemphasis of the nuance to see how far we can push the envelope; back then they thought it simpler to just say what Divine Revelation laid out.

but again, he's asking for things which qualify under our understanding of "infallibility" so that wouldn't really qualify. Councils and Popes are your best bet; Councils are best; not in their disciplinary canons but in their clearcut teaching, of which there is a lot.

Hey Bro Adam, can someone apply for this challenge as an Advocatus Diabolis, and after winning then explain why his proof was flawed? mwahaha, I think I'd have a shot... do college-tuition-funds count as charities?

[dairygirl4u2c]

You guys shouldn't put so much thought into how you'll split the money. I'm starting to think you're expecting someone to show a contradiction.

That bishop also went on to say that even the concept of invincible ignorance is null. (I'll get the quote) I do realize that he's not the pope, but this is starting to make the case with circumstantial evidence. If everyone thinks they know what the pope means, and another pope and says the plain meaning of a text is different, I think that says something...
I think it's going into absurdum to say what others think can't be taken into consideration, as it's a technicality. (I do know there was an explorer like two hunderd eyars before that quote who said ignorance might be able to save)

If you start talking about the Church saying "well it's technically possible you could get saved, but really you can't". then that's like saying, "well it's technically possible to *insert anything contra current teaching*, but really you can't".
I'm pretty sure popes said more than it's just technically possible. But i'll have to get the quotes to say for sure.


EDIT:
[mod]Please don't link to this site. --Era Might[/mod]

Well, I do have ot admit there was some speculation even in his day whether they could be saved, showing maybe it was as rigorous as I thought.
[quote]"The meaning is, that no one is saved unless he be in the Catholic communion, either
actually or virtually, either in fact or desire; and that we are not sure, generally speaking, that anyone is
saved out of the Catholic Church, who is invincibly ignorant of the true Religion," [/quote]Plus this guy does go into all the ins and outs... but he ultimatly concludes they cannot be saved bc of their sins, even if ignorance was possible.
I do admit though it was pretty round about.

[quote]
But, after all, if
any should really be found among them who are in invincible ignorance, they will be in the same state with
those who never had an opportunity of knowing any other way but the false religion they are in.


but that a person brought up in heresy, and
invincibly ignorant of the Truth, being by that means deprived of all the helps and graces which are the
consequences of the True Faith, and which are only found in the True Church, will not preserve his innocence
but continuing in his heresy, and dying in his sins, will be lost; not precisely because he had not the True
Faith, of which he is supposed to be invincibly ignorant, and therefore not culpable in wanting it, but his other
sins in which he dies guilty.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

All statements as regards the salvation of the inculpably ignorant have been expressed as theoretical possibilities: what needs to be held definitively is that if one is not culpable for their ignorance of Christ, then they will not be damned. if one is not damned, that opens up the possibility that God will do something extra-ordinary for them; or else they will find themselves at the furthest reaches of hell having no active punishment but also not acheiving the beatific vision. no one ever said that there are definitely people being saved outside the Church; the theoretical possibility of what would be necessary for that to happen has been described... we are still called to act as if no one fits these criteria and evanglize as if their salvation depended upon it, because as far as we know it does.

Arguments in the past would not contradict this paradigm, in fact they would seem to assume it as a logical necessity: the argument goes something along the lines of: everyone who is ignorant of the Truth is ignorant through their own fault; because after the coming of Christ no one has any excuse not to know Him (cf St. Paul). Perfectly logical and perfeclty elegant; and perfectly compatible with all curent paradigms of thought.

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't saying they are not damned, but they will not see the beaitic vision starting to make things up as you go along? so you can simply justify one statement that said htey can't with another that said it's possible?


heres a quote a trad catho likes to use when debating this issue, which is fitting:
[quote]Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[[/quote]


EDIT:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/lofiversion/index.php/t17068.html"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/lofiversion...php/t17068.html[/url]
That's a thread from here I found on google, where a guy reasonably does misinterpret the pope. I think Jeff did a pretty good job arguing the point too. This is evidence in your favor.

Edited May 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I don't think so at all that I'm making things up when I say there's a difference between being not deemed worthy of damnation and being lifted up to the beatific vision. I was just off in the Limbo thread on Open Mic quoting St. Gregory Nanzianzus in the Fourth Century talking about not being damnable but also not be savable.

So if in his day there was ample speculation on both sides, and he personally came down on the side that said they were not saved, but others came down on the side that they might be saved; does that not describe the spectrum of opinions possible now as well? Just that now we have more people coming down on the other side of the spectrum? Both sides are allowed.

look at this:
[quote]but that a person brought up in heresy, and
invincibly ignorant of the Truth, being by that means deprived of all the helps and graces which are the
consequences of the True Faith, and which are only found in the True Church, will not preserve his innocence
but continuing in his heresy, and dying in his sins, will be lost; not precisely because he had not the True
Faith, of which he is supposed to be invincibly ignorant, and therefore not culpable in wanting it, [b]but his other
sins in which he dies guilty.[/b][/quote]

this guy believes as I do: that if one is not culpable of their ignorance then one is not damned for their ignorance. he just says that they're probably damned for the rest of their sins; which is quite likely and why the preaching of the Gospel is such an urgent message.

you're just showing us that the wide range of opinions has always been able to exist within the strict framework of what's true and what's heretical.

but this particular archbishop seems to be clearly expressing the same truth we express: that if one is not culpable for ignorance then one is not damned for ignorance. but being in ignorance, they will not have the necessary graces to overcome concipuiscence as a result of original sin, and they find themselves in the same fallen state tending towards evil as everyone else whether they be culpably, inculpably, vincibly, or invincibly ignorant of the Truth.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1265017' date='May 5 2007, 03:17 PM']You guys shouldn't put so much thought into how you'll split the money. I'm starting to think you're expecting someone to show a contradiction.[/quote]

See what I mean? Non-Catholics find reasons to complain no matter what.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[mod]Please don't link to this site. --Era Might[/mod]

well, i think the popes were saying damned. look at that link, it provides a list of different people who taught strictly. notice the last one with Pius IX. The last question asked, it seems like he's saying ignorance is damned, as the majority as ignorant. He may not be, but given the tone of the thread, people like Archbishop Hay etc, it seems strict. People who say or think otherwise seem to be "liberal catholics" or ignorant of the teaching, as the one guy says in the above link.

[Aloysius]

the first thing said on that page is basically what I just said:

"Fr. Michael Müller, in perfect continuity with the most orthodox Catholic writers of the period, clarifies the teaching of Pope Piux IX by explaining that invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns."

Anyway, I do agree with everything the previous popes have said regarding the status of being outside the Church. The sin of rejecting the Church condemns; only the communion of the Church saves; and to be condemned to hell one must be culpable for committing their sin, though even only original sin will keep them from the beatific vision and thus on some level of "hell", even if it be the highest outer edge of hell with the least amount of suffering; though I think the highest outer edge of hell contains no suffering at all.

I have just shown how the good archbishop you are quoting says that one who is invincibly ignorant is not damned for his invincible ignorance; but he is damned for his other sins, original and actual, because he had no baptismal or other sacramental graces to overcome conspicuiscence.

what none of this excludes is the speculative theology whereby we hope that those who have inculpable ignorance are aided by God into some implicit union with the Church; a union with the Church which may save.

[Brother Adam]

Progress: [url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/features_challenge.php"]http://www.catecheticsonline.com/features_challenge.php[/url]

[Farsight one]

Here's to hoping that you don't have too much trouble caused by not specifying what versions of the bible may or may not be used. I'm just waiting for someone to pull out the ebonics bible(or whatever it's real name is).

[thessalonian]

Once again Dairy makes herself the arbitrer of what Catholicism teaches and therefore declares it as she understands it, wrong. Of course the Catholics are wrong about what their Church teaches.

[Eutychus]

Are the rules finalized yet?