Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course not! The point is - do you hunt vigorously for a crack and give up and walk away at the first one that appears? Or do you exhibit the same tenacity in searching for an answer (if one exists) for the crack? Reason works both ways.
Yes. That is what reason is. How else do you think reasonable doubt is acheived? By turning a blind eye to the cracks that one discovers through reason?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerReason only works one way - toward truth. The active application of reason toward deducing a falsehood is an unrealizable paradox. It does not make sense to apply reason tenaciously toward demonstrating the truth of both sides of a dichotomy - either the CCC God exists or he does not. If reason leads to one conclusion, it won't lead to the other, regardless of how tenaciously one applies it.
Of course not! The point is - do you hunt vigorously for a crack and give up and walk away at the first one that appears? Or do you exhibit the same tenacity in searching for an answer (if one exists) for the crack? Reason works both ways.
You are the one who says the CCC demands active contemplation. To comply, one must apply reason rigorously and vigorously, and not give up and walk away when the results are not looking good from God's perspective. If the atheists have done this, then you must conlcude, under your reasonable doubt rule, that they have thus achieved exemption from the furnace.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI will accept this. So, we now have that being cast into a furnace of fire is an understatement of the punishment.
I think you underestimate the suffering this separation means ("all he really meant ..."😉. Let's start with the assumption that, for a human soul, eternal separation from God is the worst form of suffering there is. Since God is the source of life, eternal separation from God is like a person being separated from oxygen. The need for metaphor is cl ...[text shortened]... n eternity of separation means for his soul. Perhaps fire is the closest thing we have on earth.
Allow me to rephrase my question to ivanhoe.
Ivanhoe, do you accept the teaching of the CCC that being cast into a furnace of fire is too good for active non-converts whose doubt is not based on reason, and do you accept that those people are cursed, as the CCC teaches? Do you believe that being roasted in a literal fire is too gentle for stubborn Jews?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesReason works toward truth, but can all truth be attained through reason? Are there truths that reason cannot arrive at, nor disprove? I believe there are.
Reason only works one way - toward truth. The active application of reason toward deducing a falsehood is an unrealizable paradox. It does not make sense to apply reason tenaciously toward demonstrating the truth of both sides of a dichotomy - either the CCC God exists or he does not. If reason leads to one conclusion, it won't lead to the other, ...[text shortened]... cude, under your reasonable doubt rule, that they have thus achieved exemption from the furnace.
So, in the instance you have given, there are several possibilities:
1. The CCC God exists
2. A God exists, but he's only 99% CCC (say, CCC nn.1394-1400 are not correct) etc.
3. No God exists
Because, prima facie, reason does not lead to (1) does not mean it leads directly to (3). Further, because tenets of faith are expressed in natural language and not logical propositions, it is perfectly possible to have truth on "both sides of a dichotomy" depending on the interpretation of the text. A bit like fuzzy logic.
This is where tenacity comes in. Does the person who possesses doubts investigate further (taking into account factors such as those I've listed above) or does he stop and call it a day?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is a massive call out. My knowledge of the Cathechism is not
How many people well-versed in Catholic doctrine agreee with this finding, that mere open-minded contemplation is sufficient for salvation according to the Catechism?
Let us see a show of hands, please.
How many non-Catholic Christians agree with this finding according their faith? Hands please.
comprehensive, but I will give it my best and hope that Brother Ivanhoe
or Brother Lucifershammer will amend any errors I make on behalf of
their faith. This promises to be a long post.
1. The Roman Catholic Church is explicit is stating that they are the
One True Church. That is, while an imperfect institution, it is the
institution which follows from a direct line of succession (i.e., Apostolic)
from St Peter (the rock upon which the Church was built). The RCC
acknolwedges that the Eastern Church, too, has equal legitimacy to
that claim and considers them co-equal cousins in faith.
All other Christian and non-Christian traditions have spiritual merit
commensurate to the degree to which they agree with the teachings
of the Roman Catholic (or Eastern) Church. The above is not delineated
in the Cathechism but in the document Dominus Iesus. Ivanhoe
seems to suggest that I have misread this, but the document is clear.
2. The RCC does not have a Doctrinal understanding of 'Hell.' By this
I mean that the RCC does not say: 'This is what Hell is and you, by
virtue of being RC, are obligated to believe it.' They offer conjectural
interpretations which range from literal (it is a physical location with
fire and brimstone) to metaphorical (it is a state of being where one
is simply separated from the Divine, the ultimate torture). The RCC
does not impose a specific belief-structure for Hell, just that it exists
in some capacity. It offers the quotations of Jesus as a point of reference,
but their official translation of the Bible also makes clear that Jesus was
using Gehenna (the smouldering garbage dump outside of Jerusalem) as
a metaphor. Some RC theologians interpret 'burning fire' to be akin to
the 'burning fire of passion;' that is, the burning comes from the longing
for God's love. As such, they interpret earth as a mini-Hell, wherein we
are searching for God's love. It is an interesting perspective, in any event.
3. Salvation comes through the Church. As St Peter and the Apostles
were given the power to hold sins bound or to liberate people from them,
so, too, does the Church (as a continuation of the Apostolic Line) have
this ability. This is the justification for the Sacrament of Reconciliation,
I might add. The Church does not claim that 'decides' who enters heaven,
but acts as a vessel through which Salvation occurs. It is a 'mediator' of
sorts, that is, by following the teachings of the Church, you have the
blessing of the Church upon your death. As the RCC holds that it is the
official Church of Jesus Christ, this blessing has salvific currency and has
weight in heaven. Those who are not formally part of the Church will
necessarily have a harder time getting into heaven, but their damnation is
not guaranteed, for they acknowledge that it is Christ, not the Church that
saves, that Christ will look into the hearts of the departed and decide on
their 'sheepship or goatship.'
4. The role of 'informed conscience' is always in play. Confer:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/moral.html
The short of this Doctrine is that a person must always evaluate a given situation
or moral quandry against the teachings of the Church and, if that person comes
to the conclusion that the Church is in error, s/he is obligated to follow his/her
conscience. That is, if on the matters of a particular dogmatic teaching, the
faithful finds him/herself unable to accept the conclusions of the Church after
contemplatative prayer and mediation, that person must follow his/her conscience.
The RCC teaches that God will know the heart and intentions of the faithful in
question and judge in accordance with that. As written in that section, this does not
excuse ignorance or error, but offers the RC believer a degree of moral plasticity. To
tie this with another post I made, it allows a person his/her own hermaneutical standpoint.
I hope that this helps to explain some of what is being discussed here.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo construct a simple inference: 1) A or B; 2) If A, then not B. Now, if you establish A with certainty, then with equal certainty you have established not-B.
Reason works toward truth, but can all truth be attained through reason? Are there truths that reason cannot arrive at, nor disprove? I believe there are.
So, in the instance you have given, there are several possibilities:
1. ...[text shortened]... ch as those I've listed above) or does he stop and call it a day?
If you are able to establish A with, say, a 90% probability, then it is 90% probability that not-B. This seems to go to lucifershammer’s point about fuzzy logic.
However, even if you establish not-B with certainty, that does not allow you to logically infer A. For example: 1) CCC God or non-CCC God; 2) If CCC God, then not non-CCC God; 3) not the non-CCC God. In this case, proving “not the non-CCC God” does not prove the CCC God, because the inference as constructed does not preclude some third concept of God. To do that, you would have to specify 1) A or B; 2) If A, then not B; and 3) If not B, then A. (If I knew my symbolic logic better, I could probably make this less cumbersome.
I am assuming that the good Doctor means this last case when he says, “either the CCC God exists or he does not.”
Now, however, look at the possibility of several “competing systems,” where each system represents a cluster or set of propositions or truth-claims, and a logical function “f” that operates in each case such that the elements of the set are linked in a logically consistent way (i.e., they are internally consistent at least):
System 1: f(A, C, D)
System 2: f(B, D, F)
System 3: f(A, D, F)
Now suppose that Set 1 (with its elements and f) is established to be true. Suppose further an absolute knowledge that “if A, then not F.” What can you say about the truth or falsity of the other sets or “belief systems?”
It seems clear that, if System 1 defines a non-CCC God, and System 2 defines the CCC-God, neither can be excluded simply on the basis of the other. Also, if the System 2 CCC-God is proven false, System 1 would still define a God that has at least some of the characteristics of the CCC-God. For example, in System 2 “B” could represent a literalistic reading of such things as “hell” and “furnace” etc., while in System 1, “A” could represent non-literalistic, symbolic or metaphorical readings.
If such a systemic approach is at all logical, then the issue is somewhat more complicated than a simple “either-or.”.
I am sure that by complicating your arguments in this manner, I have done you both great service…. 😕
EDIT: Once again, Nemesio clarified things before I could obscure them further. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWould I be correct to conclude from this that the Church does not teach that one must be baptized or believe in Jesus in order to receive his salvation?
This is a massive call out. My knowledge of the Cathechism is not
comprehensive, but I will give it my best and hope that Brother Ivanhoe
or Brother Lucifershammer will amend any errors I make on behalf of
their faith. This promises t ...[text shortened]... elps to explain some of what is being discussed here.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI would say that, with the provisions mentioned above from Dominus
Would I be correct to conclude from this that the Church does not teach that one must be baptized or believe in Jesus in order to receive his salvation?
Iesus (specifically those which essentially say, one never knows
God's full intent and plan and that He may save those whom He
chooses) the word 'must' is too strong. No, one 'mustn't' be Baptized
or believe in Jesus.
The RCC teaches that Baptism and adherence to the Church's
teachings substantially increase the likelihood and, that in their
absence it is highly unlikely.
I must note that this is a point of dispute amongst theologians and,
when pressed, they all fully admit that the notion of salvation is,
ultimately, at God's discretion and that they are just doing the best
they can with what they know.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIf we could take this to one more level of precision, I would appreciate it.
The RCC teaches that Baptism and adherence to the Church's
teachings substantially increase the likelihood and, that in their
absence it is highly unlikely.
To teach that Baptism increases the likelihood of salvation might mean one of two things, and I'm not sure which you intend.
One sense of increasing the likelihood is that God has definite, strict necessary criteria for salvation, and the Church teaches that Baptism is likely to be among those necessary criteria. Here, we are working with an informational sense of likelihood, with strict necessary criteria existing yet not perfectly known to man. The uncertainty here is whether the Church is correct or not about Baptism being one of the criteria.
The other sense is that God performs individual evaluations, much like a college application. While a 1500 SAT score isn't necessary for admission, it makes it very likely; while Baptism isn't necessary for salvation, it certainly helps. Here we are working with a sort of dice-rolling criteria, like "99% of all 1500 SAT scorers will gain admission." The uncertainty here is the degree to which Baptism is a factor in this decision.
I suspect you meant the latter of these two, in which case, it sounds like the Church teaches that one needs to accummulate a sufficient collection of "salvation points" through Baptism, repentence, charity, etc. in order to be considered for admission to heaven, and the more points you collect, the more likely you are to be admitted.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBaptism confers membership in the Body of Christ. Being a member
If we could take this to one more level of precision, I would appreciate it.
To teach that Baptism increases the likelihood of salvation might mean one of two things, and I'm not sure which you intend.
One sense of increasing the likelihood is that God has definite, strict necessary criteria for salvation, and the Church teaches that Baptism ...[text shortened]... ion to heaven, and the more points you collect, the more likely you are to be admitted.
Dr. S
of the Body of Christ makes you an ersatz member of the Church
Universal, as it is Her teaching that all should be Baptized (as per
Biblical mandate). This is the case whether or not you attend to Her
other beliefs.
Being a member of the Church does not necessarily confer salvation,
whether you are or are not attending to Her beliefs and neither does
not being a member impose damnation (the document Dominus
Iesus makes this clear). However, being an attentive member of
the Church definitely increases the likelihood (in Her opinion) of
salvation, as they claim to have the clearest theological doctrines of
any faith tradition.
As for 'strict necessary criteria,' the Church, as far as I can discern,
gives an escape clause to God's judgment (as, I believe, makes
sense), that, while we have a bunch of 'guidelines,' the adherence of
which nearly ensures salvation, the ignoring of which does not
necessarily guarantee damnation.
I do not think the 'points system' makes any theological sense, but
I understand you were giving an example for the sake of elucidating
your point.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIs this what is taught to children?
while we have a bunch of 'guidelines,' the adherence of
which nearly ensures salvation, the ignoring of which does not
necessarily guarantee damnation.
In Sunday School, are ten-year-olds taught that they will only probably go to heaven if they remain good Catholics?
Or do the teachers convey to them a full confidence that they will not burn in hell?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt would be very difficult to teach children Dominus Iesus, as it
Is this what is taught to children?
In Sunday School, are ten-year-olds taught that they will only probably go to heaven if they remain good Catholics?
Or do the teachers convey to them a full confidence that they will not burn in hell?
is a highly developed theological deocument and the nicities of which
are subtle and complex.
Indeed, when adults teach their children 'Do not lie' (irrespective of
religion), they don't include all manner of subtlety with exceptions for
those times when it is indeed appropriate to lie.
I think your question is, 'Do they preach on this to adults, who are
capable of understanding the nicities?'
In my experience, it is a rare priest who gets this hardcore into the
theology of the RCC. That having been said, it's not often I've heard
something like 'You won't be saved if you aren't Baptized' or 'If you
don't believe in XYZ, you will burn in Hell.'
Most sermons are fairly mealy-mouthed, quite frankly, so I am not
sure how good a determining factor that should be.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioVery well then. If I took a poll of 1000 Catholics who attended weekly Mass but performed no theological study beyond that, how many would you expect to respond that
It would be very difficult to teach children Dominus Iesus, as it
is a highly developed theological deocument and the nicities of which
are subtle and complex.
Indeed, when adults teach their children 'Do not lie' (irrespective of
religion), they don't include all manner of subtlety with exceptions for
those times when it is indeed appropr ...[text shortened]... thed, quite frankly, so I am not
sure how good a determining factor that should be.
Nemesio
belief in Jesus is a necessary condition for entering Heaven? How many would you expect to report that Baptism is a necessary condition for entering Heaven?