CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27th January 2009, 09:11 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
Hi Ron,

If a person, persistent in his errors, dies under the state of anathema and/or excommunication, does it mean his soul cannot enter heaven?

There are two types of excommunication, of the internal forum and of the external forum. A sentence of excommunication given as a brought judgment (ferendae sententiae) is of the external forum, i.e. a Pope or Bishop or group of Bishops has decided that someone is guilty of a serious offense, and so they issue a judgment of excommunication. Such a judgment may be in error, and so the person may still be in a state of grace, and may go to heaven.

St. Joan of Arc died under a sentence of excommunication from a Bishop, but she is a Saint.

However, if someone commits an actual mortal sin of apostasy, heresy, or schism, this is a sin against God in the heart and mind (the internal forum),
and if they die without repenting, then they end up in Hell, not because they died under excommunication, but because the offense for which they were automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) is also an actual mortal sin. If a person commits any sin short of an actual mortal sin, and so remains in a state of grace, they will still go to Heaven when they die (perhaps by way of Purgatory).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30th January 2009, 01:56 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

FOURTH SESSION
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

This decree completes a long process of discerning the Canon of Scripture, i.e. which books belong in the Catholic Bible. Interestingly, although the list is an infallible decision of doctrine and required belief, the wording used to refer to each book is not. The list attributes Hebrews to Paul, even though some Fathers believed it was not his work, attributes the three letters of John to John the Apostle (rather than to John the elder), both of which attributions are probably incorrect.

The Council also established the Latin scriptural tradition as preeminent in the Church:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.... Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.


According to Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII, Trent decreed the total inerrancy of Scripture:

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that "the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical."[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical "not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself." When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 30th January 2009, 10:01 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Ron, with respect to the interpretation of the Word God, the latter being devoid of error, does the Church have "official interpretation" with respect to certain verses. For example, Matthew 16 : 17-19 relates to the establishment of the Papacy and must be held to be interpreted this way as set forth by the Magisterium and Tradition ?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 31st January 2009, 01:03 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
Ron, with respect to the interpretation of the Word God, the latter being devoid of error, does the Church have "official interpretation" with respect to certain verses. For example, Matthew 16 : 17-19 relates to the establishment of the Papacy and must be held to be interpreted this way as set forth by the Magisterium and Tradition ?

There are numerous required beliefs in the Catholic Faith, but there are none that require one sole specific interpretation of a verse of Scripture. Certainly, all the doctrines of the Faith are firmly based on Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition. The faithful are called to interpret and live Scripture according to their own understanding, in accord with magisterial teachings. It is not the case that the Magisterium issues official interpretations of various passages.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2nd February 2009, 01:24 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

SESSION THE FIFTH,

Celebrated on the seventeenth day of the month of June, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 3rd February 2009, 11:40 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
SESSION THE FIFTH,

Celebrated on the seventeenth day of the month of June, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.


Ron, when Adam transgresses the commandment of God in Paradise, does he lose all supernatural and preternatural gifts that had been given to him. I am trying to better grasp the notion of preternatural vs supenatural. That is, are preternatural gifts non essential to human nature, but are given by God. For example, before the fall, Adam was exempted from concupiscence, this was a preternatural gift ? Whereas a supernatural gift is a gift from God that completeley exceeds what a created being can claim to. For example, participating in sanctifying grace ? And, were both given to our first parents before the Fall, or just preternatural gifts for example ?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 4th February 2009, 01:49 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
Ron, when Adam transgresses the commandment of God in Paradise, does he lose all supernatural and preternatural gifts that had been given to him. I am trying to better grasp the notion of preternatural vs supenatural. That is, are preternatural gifts non essential to human nature, but are given by God. For example, before the fall, Adam was exempted from concupiscence, this was a preternatural gift ? Whereas a supernatural gift is a gift from God that completeley exceeds what a created being can claim to. For example, participating in sanctifying grace ? And, were both given to our first parents before the Fall, or just preternatural gifts for example ?

"A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature....Some of these are absolutely supernatural, i.e. beyond the reach of all created nature (even of the angels), and elevate the creature to a dignity and perfection natural to God alone; others are only relatively supernatural (preternatural), i.e. above human nature only and elevate human nature to that state of higher perfection which is natural to the angels. The original state of man comprised both of these, and when he fell he lost both. Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

The absence of concupiscence is natural to human nature before the Fall, so it is neither supernatural nor preternatural.

Sactifying grace is supernatural, and was possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 4th February 2009, 08:27 AM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 711
Default

Ron, what is anathema?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 4th February 2009, 10:06 AM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
"Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm


So will Christ restore preternatural gifts to the blessed once they are in heaven?
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 4th February 2009, 12:49 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,591
Default

When someone is anathema, they are excommunicated, i.e. cut off from the Church and the Sacraments until they repent.

The preternatural gifts, such as the immortality of the body, the freedom of the body from injury, the ability of the body to do more than it naturally could do, are given at the general Resurrection (also at the First Resurrection).

The souls in Heaven have the Beatific Vision, which is supernatural. Such souls do not need any preternatural gifts, which apply to the body being able to exceed the limits of human nature.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.