Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» The Unity of the Body (the Church, Israel)
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyYesterday at 9:23 am by tornpage

» Defilement of the Temple
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyTue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage

» Forum update
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptySat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage

» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyThu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan

» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage

» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage

» Isaiah 22:20-25
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage

» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage

» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan

» Do Feeneyites still exist?
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyWed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne

» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptySat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage

» Inallible safety?
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan

» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne

» Anyone still around?
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyMon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne

» Angelqueen.org???
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptyTue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Rethink "Feeneyism"?

5 posters

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Euclid Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:09 pm

tornpage wrote:
For me this debate about "intrinsic v. extrinsic" is about credibility, and who to believe. A bunch of theologians use those distinctions, which I think bogus. To the extent that the theologians who use such terminology are thought of as speaking for the Church and expressing the Catholic truth, their nonsense rubs off on the truth of the true Church by association. The truth does not contradict itself, and a "relatively absolute necessity of means (an "extrinsic" necessity)" is an absurdity, and not truth.

This bothers me, as a Catholic and a believer that she possesses and stands for THE TRUTH.

Thank you, Tornpage and MRyan for your erudite and thoughtful responses to my post. Why did I tap on the shoulder of a giant who is locked in battle with another giant over such? Because the question, as I see it, is about whom to damn.
Which of YOU should I believe?

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
But I will ask a question of you [Euclid] now: was the salvation of you, me or anyone else determined by God before we were born, and without anything we did being the cause of God's pre-determination? Come on, Tornpage, give the new guy a break. He probably has no idea what awaits him and the theological quagmire and fog you are about to unleash, not to mention the theological distinctions that might get buried beneath the rubble.

But, hey, if he wants to bite, at least he's been forewarned.
Not fog, clarity, and perhaps too much clarity - the blinding kind. Smile

Ok, I'll bite. Bear in mind that I am a neophyte. So, the question is free will vs predestination, unless I fail to comprehend you. I am neither a Calvanist nor a Lutheran. Does that answer your question?

I can hardly wait to be blinded. Especially because I suspect that you and Ryan will enjoy circling each other over this one, and I will certainly learn a great deal whilst perching on the window ledge during your contretemps.





Euclid

Posts : 5
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:13 pm

tornpage wrote:Listen, Torquemada, this was a discussion of "extrinsic necessity" and a "relative necessity of means."
Torquemada? Hmmm ... I think I could get used to that. Perhaps a new avatar is in order?

From the CE:
The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Prædicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order".
Well, golly, I wouldn't go that far, I'm just the hammer of Tornpage. Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 490908
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.

Show me, anywhere, any time, the Church saying baptism is a "necessity of means." Show her using the term in any instance beyond those I"ve mentioned. Show me the Church saying baptism is an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means.

I'll be waiting, but not too long . . . I'd be dead before you showed me anything.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:57 pm

Euclid,

You're a good sport and a very nice addition here - glad you stopped by.

Ok, I'll bite. Bear in mind that I am a neophyte. So, the question is free will vs predestination, unless I fail to comprehend you. I am neither a Calvanist nor a Lutheran. Does that answer your question?

I'm glad you're not a Calvinist or a Lutheran, but that doesn't really help me on this issue.

But your response tells me there's no need to get into this now. I was testing your presuppositions a bit and you passed the test.

Especially because I suspect that you and Ryan will enjoy circling each other over this one, and I will certainly learn a great deal whilst perching on the window ledge during your contretemps.

Yes, MRyan and I do enjoy this sport, and if you read around this site you'll see broken windows, bottles etc. all over the place from our exercising. LOL

But it's all in sport - the rhetoric. But the discussion and substance is serious, and we take it seriously.

Again, welcome.

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Euclid Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:36 pm

Tornpage,

I do not need to examine the entire blog to recognize the evidence of your former rumbles with your friend, there's enough evidence in this thread of such. So, in answer to your question (just so you know, there is nothing I would not like to examine at this, or any, time. I am not personality acquainted with enough "dinosaurs" (I include myself among this classification) to be able to discuss the true faith as I would prefer.). I believe in free will. Which is why we are, as a society, being lured by the devil into increasingly lascivious ways of life. That Vatican II was an incredible disservice to mankind, which brought about the dissolution of the Traditional Cathoilic Church, and her power to save us from our own destruction.

Euclid

Posts : 5
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:27 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.
Yes, with the point being "transubstantiation" didn't enter the Scholastic vocabulary of theologians until the 12th century, and the Church didn’t define the material transformation in the language of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics until the 13th century.  The Church would “dogmatize” the term because there were those within the Church who denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence.

Why would the Church think it necessary to formally or definitively define “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” when the received scholastic theology that explains them is universally recognized and accepted by all Catholics (acceptable disagreements over minor points, e.g., the limits of “implicit desire”, notwithstanding)?

Does the fact that someone who calls himself Tornpage on some obscure blog (with exactly three participants) rejects the universal teaching on Baptism as a necessity of means and says it is a necessity of precept only (because he rejects the accepted absolute/intrinsic and relative/extrinsic distinctions) warrant a formal definition?

The universal, common, ordinary and authentic teachings of the Scholastic Theologians that we see embodied in the Church’s sacramental theology as it relates to her understanding of the necessities of means and precept is an accepted and uncontested given (at least with respect to the baptisms of blood and desire).        

The point being it is the same metaphysics of the Scholastics that would be utilized to explain in greater detail what is known as necessity of means and necessity of precept. With respect to the former it would be further divided into two classes, either absolute/intrinsic/metaphysical, or relative/extrinsic/metaphysical

(NB: there must be an intrinsic metaphysical ordering or relationship between the object and end, or it is not a necessity of means).  

Theologians held Baptism to be both absolutely and relatively necessary (as a necessity of means) because they took the baptisms of blood and desire as established givens. To understand why the sacrament of baptism is both absolutely and relatively necessary, and not just a necessity of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas (and Trent) very clearly spell this out:

Beginning with the Council of Trent, Sess. IV, Ch 2, On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism:

…we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The Council of Trent, Ch. 14, On the fallen, and their restoration

…For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or “at least in desire…”

In the dogma of Trent and in the language of the scholastic theologians, in the Sacrament of Penance there is an intrinsic metaphysical relationship between the penitence of the Christian (who has fallen) and sacramental confession, to include at least “the desire thereof”.

Unlike the baptism of desire (which has its own intrinsic/metaphysical relationship between the end {regeneration into Christ} and the object {water baptism}, at least in “the desire thereof”), with Penance the end (the forgiveness of sins/restoration) cannot be realized except by the object, either sacramental confession itself, or the desire/intention to confess as soon as possible (with the proper dispositions) when one is prevented from doing so by some necessity.

If the sacrament of penance were only a necessity of precept, one could be excused from the obligation to confess one’s sins when some necessity prevents one from doing so, regardless of one’s intention/desire to fulfill the precept. Why? Because, a necessity of precept, like fulfilling one’s Sunday Mass obligation, is a moral obligation, not a metaphysical one.  

Speaking of the Mass, we might say that to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation -- which neither ignorance nor necessity can excuse; whereas the object (means) by which the end is fulfilled is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means (the object remains metaphysically and intrinsically related to the end), since there is more than one means by which the end can be fulfilled when necessity prevents one from attending Sunday Mass (a moral necessity), the latter of which forms just one part (the major one, for sure) of keeping the Lord’s Day Holy.    

As necessities of means, both Baptism and Penance (the fallen) are absolutely necessary for salvation; absolutely with respect to their sacramental effects, and relatively with respect to the reception of the respective sacraments themselves when necessity presents an obstacle (and the right dispositions are present), whereby the grace of the sacraments (the essential means to the end) can be supplied by the desire thereof (Baptism) and one’s firm intention (Penance).    

Capice?
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Luscinia Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:02 pm

Gentle Giants:

Euclid is now Luscinia, foe your reference for future posts. (Carefully stepping over the broken crockery...)

Luscinia

Posts : 1
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2017-08-08

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:29 am

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

Ah, no, it's not like that at all. Was it only the avatar that changed? - Love it, btw. LOL

But back to the subject . . .

No matter when, the Church herself in her solemn teaching uses the term "transubstantiation." See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter 4.
Yes, with the point being "transubstantiation" didn't enter the Scholastic vocabulary of theologians until the 12th century, and the Church didn’t define the material transformation in the language of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics until the 13th century.  The Church would “dogmatize” the term because there were those within the Church who denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence.

Why would the Church think it necessary to formally or definitively define “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” when the received scholastic theology that explains them is universally recognized and accepted by all Catholics (acceptable disagreements over minor points, e.g., the limits of “implicit desire”, notwithstanding)?

Does the fact that someone who calls himself Tornpage on some obscure blog (with exactly three participants) rejects the universal teaching on Baptism as a necessity of means and says it is a necessity of precept only (because he rejects the accepted absolute/intrinsic and relative/extrinsic distinctions) warrant a formal definition?

The universal, common, ordinary and authentic teachings of the Scholastic Theologians that we see embodied in the Church’s sacramental theology as it relates to her understanding of the necessities of means and precept is an accepted and uncontested given (at least with respect to the baptisms of blood and desire).        

The point being it is the same metaphysics of the Scholastics that would be utilized to explain in greater detail what is known as necessity of means and necessity of precept. With respect to the former it would be further divided into two classes, either absolute/intrinsic/metaphysical, or relative/extrinsic/metaphysical

(NB: there must be an intrinsic metaphysical ordering or relationship between the object and end, or it is not a necessity of means).  

Theologians held Baptism to be both absolutely and relatively necessary (as a necessity of means) because they took the baptisms of blood and desire as established givens. To understand why the sacrament of baptism is both absolutely and relatively necessary, and not just a necessity of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas (and Trent) very clearly spell this out:

Beginning with the Council of Trent, Sess. IV, Ch 2, On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism:

…we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The Council of Trent, Ch. 14, On the fallen, and their restoration

…For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or “at least in desire…”

In the dogma of Trent and in the language of the scholastic theologians, in the Sacrament of Penance there is an intrinsic metaphysical relationship between the penitence of the Christian (who has fallen) and sacramental confession, to include at least “the desire thereof”.

Unlike the baptism of desire (which has its own intrinsic/metaphysical relationship between the end {regeneration into Christ} and the object {water baptism}, at least in “the desire thereof”), with Penance the end (the forgiveness of sins/restoration) cannot be realized except by the object, either sacramental confession itself, or the desire/intention to confess as soon as possible (with the proper dispositions) when one is prevented from doing so by some necessity.

If the sacrament of penance were only a necessity of precept, one could be excused from the obligation to confess one’s sins when some necessity prevents one from doing so, regardless of one’s intention/desire to fulfill the precept. Why? Because, a necessity of precept, like fulfilling one’s Sunday Mass obligation, is a moral obligation, not a metaphysical one.  

Speaking of the Mass, we might say that to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation -- which neither ignorance nor necessity can excuse; whereas the object (means) by which the end is fulfilled is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means (the object remains metaphysically and intrinsically related to the end), since there is more than one means by which the end can be fulfilled when necessity prevents one from attending Sunday Mass (a moral necessity), the latter of which forms just one part (the major one, for sure) of keeping the Lord’s Day Holy.    

As necessities of means, both Baptism and Penance (the fallen) are absolutely necessary for salvation; absolutely with respect to their sacramental effects, and relatively with respect to the reception of the respective sacraments themselves when necessity presents an obstacle (and the right dispositions are present), whereby the grace of the sacraments (the essential means to the end) can be supplied by the desire thereof (Baptism) and one’s firm intention (Penance).    

Capice?

Capice?

I don't know what coffee has to do with this, but that's the best elaboration on this topic that I've ever read.

I might come back in a bit with some cream and sugar.

tornpage
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:25 am

tornpage wrote:
Capice?

I don't know what coffee has to do with this, but that's the best elaboration on this topic that I've ever read.

I might come back in a bit with some cream and sugar.

tornpage
Coffee? Anyway, get out your Urban Dictionary. "Capice" is something Torquemada would say were he Mafioso.  

And "to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day Holy" is a bit redundant, if not a complete grammatical gaff, but you got the message.

Are we actually making progress? Can't wait for the cream and sugar!
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm

Mike,

Yes, progress. Need to wrap my mind around this a bit more.

I'm a whetstone. I'll get you to make sense and refine the argument to make it credible and incisive.

Sometimes you need prodding, but after my prodding . . . you're very, very good . . . except when you're wrong. lol

I'll give you this much at present: you might not be "wrong" here.

The cream is in the frig and the sugar is in the pantry, on standby.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Mon Jan 08, 2024 2:41 pm

Mike,

Ok, old friend. I've had enough coffee and caffeine enlightenment over the last 6 plus years, and still call phooey on "relative necessity of means."

Good grief, I might have quoted this in one of the prior pages of this thread - who wants to look? - but here's the CE on "relative necessity":

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case [i.e., baptism of water], necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

How is your "relative necessity of means," being a "necessity . . . based upon a positive precept," different from, well, a "necessity of precept"? The necessity is preceptual, and can be omitted "unless culpable." In fact, doesn't the CE above describe this thing that is "relatively necessary" as a "necessity of precept." Yeah, I think so.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . it's a necessity of precept.  Smile

Here's a definition of "necessity of precept":

Something is said to be necessary by necessity of precept when it is required by a positive will of the superior or legislator. Hence the quality or entity in question is not intrinsically related to the nature of the subject requiring it, but only extrinsically, i.e., by the free determination of another subject.

This necessity belongs to the moral order, and not to the metaphysical order; hence it ceases to urge when it is physically or morally impossible to satisfy it. Thus, to hear Mass on Sunday, being imposed by a positive law of the Church under pain of mortal sin, is necessary by necessity of precept. If a dispensation is obtained from the legitimate authority, or if the law cannot be fulfilled except with grave inconvenience, or if it is physically impossible to fulfill it, the law ceases to urge.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/necessity-precept

Your "relative necessity of means," extrinsically necessary, is just like the necessity of precept, is masquerading.

But my beautiful yellow lab sees through it all - can you hear her bark?

Or, rather, can you hear your "relative necessity of means" going "quack, quack"?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Mon Jan 08, 2024 3:46 pm

I did post part of the CE quote on "necessity" before, and also the quote from that encyclopedia.

I think a clarification is in order, if this ever gets going again: Baptism, in the sense of regeneration, being born again, is indeed a necessity of means, as is penance, in the sense of a washing away of post-baptismal sins with contrition and a living, ongoing faith in Christ.

Unless you hold that the "desire" for baptism or penance, to avail, requires an explicit desire for the sacrament at issue, then those sacraments are not necessities of means, but rather of precept.

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:56 pm

tornpage wrote:I did post part of the CE quote on "necessity" before, and also the quote from that encyclopedia.

I think a clarification is in order, if this ever gets going again: Baptism, in the sense of regeneration, being born again, is indeed a necessity of means, as is penance, in the sense of a washing away of post-baptismal sins with contrition and a living, ongoing faith in Christ.
Agreed, while recognizing that in both cases the ends for which the sacraments were instituted can be realized, in necessity, when the proper dispositions/virtues are present, for our Lord is not bound to His Sacraments to effect the same ends, when and IF He chooses to do so. He becomes the means of transmission. When some obstacle prevents the reception of Baptism or Penance, the metaphysical neccesities of means remain until death, they never become just moral precepts.  

tornpage wrote:Unless you hold that the "desire" for baptism or penance, to avail, requires an explicit desire for the sacrament at issue, then those sacraments are not necessities of means, but rather of precept.
I don't see how your supposition necessarily follows from the premise above. The reuisite desire for Baptism may be implicit in one's supernatural faith, charity and desire for one's union with God - to do His will. Can a soul be justified prior to sacramental baptism, or not? If so, it follows that the penitent may be inculpably ignorant of Baptism's sacramental necessity as a necessity of means. That does not render it a moral precept, like attending Sunday Mass.  

The primary end for the sacrament of Penance is forgiveness and restoration to a state of grace, so of course contrition, the desire for forgiveness, must be explicit, so too the sacramental means of transmission unless he is unaware of the necessity of the Sacrament.

E.g, let's say he was Baptized as an infant, comes of age in a Catholic household without any meaningful instruction, and comits a mortal sin. He faith, however, is strong and he possesses a "perfect charity". In this case his desire for the sacrament can be implicit in his perfect contrition. If God accepts his contrition and desire to please Him and His Church the best way he knows how, the metaphysical necessity to sacramentally confess His sin remains until fulfilled (at the soonest opportunity once he becomes aware of this necessity), or unitl death.

Six years?  Seems like just yesterday.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:34 am

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:I did post part of the CE quote on "necessity" before, and also the quote from that encyclopedia.

I think a clarification is in order, if this ever gets going again: Baptism, in the sense of regeneration, being born again, is indeed a necessity of means, as is penance, in the sense of a washing away of post-baptismal sins with contrition and a living, ongoing faith in Christ.
Agreed, while recognizing that in both cases the ends for which the sacraments were instituted can be realized, in necessity, when the proper dispositions/virtues are present, for our Lord is not bound to His Sacraments to effect the same ends, when and IF He chooses to do so. He becomes the means of transmission. When some obstacle prevents the reception of Baptism or Penance, the metaphysical neccesities of means remain until death, they never become just moral precepts.  

tornpage wrote:Unless you hold that the "desire" for baptism or penance, to avail, requires an explicit desire for the sacrament at issue, then those sacraments are not necessities of means, but rather of precept.
I don't see how your supposition necessarily follows from the premise above. The reuisite desire for Baptism may be implicit in one's supernatural faith, charity and desire for one's union with God - to do His will. Can a soul be justified prior to sacramental baptism, or not? If so, it follows that the penitent may be inculpably ignorant of Baptism's sacramental necessity as a necessity of means. That does not render it a moral precept, like attending Sunday Mass.  

The primary end for the sacrament of Penance is forgiveness and restoration to a state of grace, so of course contrition, the desire for forgiveness, must be explicit, so too the sacramental means of transmission unless he is unaware of the necessity of the Sacrament.

E.g, let's say he was Baptized as an infant, comes of age in a Catholic household without any meaningful instruction, and comits a mortal sin. He faith, however, is strong and he possesses a "perfect charity". In this case his desire for the sacrament can be implicit in his perfect contrition. If God accepts his contrition and desire to please Him and His Church the best way he knows how, the metaphysical necessity to sacramentally confess His sin remains until fulfilled (at the soonest opportunity once he becomes aware of this necessity), or unitl death.

Six years?  Seems like just yesterday.

Mike,

I don't quite understand "metaphysical necessity." You should define your use of that term.

If one can X without availing of, or making use of, Y, Y is not necessary as a means to X.

We humans are very clever and can talk up a very "good" game, but we can't fool God, logic . . . the truth.

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:27 pm

tornpage wrote:
Mike,

I don't quite understand "metaphysical necessity." You should define your use of that term.

If one can X without availing of, or making use of, Y, Y is not necessary as a means to X.

We humans are very clever and can talk up a very "good" game, but we can't fool God, logic . . . the truth.
Metaphysical necessity refers simply "to the idea that certain things must exist or be true in all possible worlds". All possible worlds in this case means there is no possible scenario which would not require the absolute necessity of Baptism, which is also the Sacrament of Faith, for without Divine and Catholic Faith, no one can be saved.

But, OK, Mephysical necessity might have passed its "gee, doesen't that sound impressive" expiration date, so I"ll drop it. Way back then I was just looking for another way of saying the same thing ... over and over and over again. You know, like this truth:

Faith and Baptism (Regeneration) are intrinsic necessities, while the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance are extrinsic necessities, the essential effects of which are not tied to only one mode of transmission (the instrumental causes), for God is not tied to the administration of HIS Sacraments to effect the same ends.  

As Aquinas says:

the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Tue Jan 09, 2024 3:07 pm

Just to be clear:

MRyan wrote:Faith and Baptism (Regeneration) are intrinsic necessities [of means], while the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance are extrinsic necessities [of means], the essential effects of which are not tied to only one mode of transmission (the instrumental causes), for God is not tied to the administration of HIS Sacraments to effect the same ends.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  tornpage Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:47 pm

MRyan wrote:Just to be clear:

MRyan wrote:Faith and Baptism (Regeneration) are intrinsic necessities [of means], while the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance are extrinsic necessities [of means], the essential effects of which are not tied to only one mode of transmission (the instrumental causes), for God is not tied to the administration of HIS Sacraments to effect the same ends.

We'll leave it at that . . . sort of where we left it.

The issues regarding the hierarchy and their implications are much more profound and important,.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  MRyan Tue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:Just to be clear:

MRyan wrote:Faith and Baptism (Regeneration) are intrinsic necessities [of means], while the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance are extrinsic necessities [of means], the essential effects of which are not tied to only one mode of transmission (the instrumental causes), for God is not tied to the administration of HIS Sacraments to effect the same ends.

We'll leave it at that . . . sort of where we left it.

The issues regarding the hierarchy and their implications are much more profound and important,.
Oh yes, in that we are in perfect agreement!
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Rethink "Feeneyism"? - Page 2 Empty Re: Rethink "Feeneyism"?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum