OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
Don't know. I think she acted dangerously, and I also think the officer could have responded in a different way that avoided any deaths. I vote Everyone's An Asshole Here.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
Does it change anyone's opinion on the competency of the police to know that the officer who shot the woman had been employed by six different police departments in a span of 4 years?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
That's also why I thought it possible that there was friendly fire. Because firing towards the shooter would also mean firing over/through a large crowd.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
What gets me is that there were three people, in addition to Trump, who were seriously wounded or killed. First bullet when through Trump's ear and then took out someone to the stage left of him (saw a video of someone collapsing immediately, before the rest of the crowd got spooked.) Two more shots, two more dead/seriously wounded. It's certainly possible, like shooting fish in a barrel. But man, how unfortunate.
From the beginning I was wondering if they were trying to cover up a friendly fire incident, but I don't know.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
I'm against Libs of TikTok cancelling random poor workers for not knowing when to shut up. But this article makes a case for it.
First, the author makes a case that "Normie Bloodlust" is common and never punished. Think of people expressing hope that a rapist is raped in prison. I don't think the author believes that this behavior is good, per se, just common and usually unpunished.
He then goes on to say that "there’s nothing unfair, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, about facing social opprobrium for unpopular speech and behavior." He seems to support that sort of cancellation, whichever side of the aisle it is coming from.
But then he argues that the Right has been facing a different, unfair type of cancellation:
The reason you can get fired for liking a Steve Sailer tweet, or donating $25 to a legal defense fund, isn’t because of a Groundswell of Popular Outrage — it’s because your employer can face 9-figure fines if they refuse to enforce a particular set of social strictures.
When my doxx was released, the “expose” got 400 likes on Twitter. For perspective, I’ve had 10 tweets with more than that in the last 72 hours. 400 likes is not “viral”, even with a dozen antifa doxxing rings (at the height of their energy) and a reporter from the Guardian helping it along.
It turns out, nobody actually cares if an entry-level finance drone thinks that feminism sucks.
But it wasn’t about a “social media outrage mob”. My employer was a glowie intelligence contractor — they didn’t “cave to popular pressure”. They don’t even sell to the public.
It was about avoiding the threat of being sued for creating a Hostile Work Environment by allowing my words to go unpunished. They fired me to comply with federal law.
The last interesting point he makes is that:
A good friend who works in HR issues the following warning:
“not sure people realize that 1) a presidential assassination attempt is like a every 30 years black swan event where the HR Ladies are forced to fire anyone who says the wrong thing, and 2) the HR Ladies relish these opportunities to make a few ingroup firings because it reestablishes their neutrality and legitimacy”
“lots of ppl seem to be victory lapping over a "vibe shift" that is really more of a temporary vibe window that will snap shut within weeks”
I think he makes some good points though I disagree with the conclusion that it is fine and dandy for the Right to cancel struggling zero-influence people for saying things that were normal to say two weeks ago.
My theory is currently:
The shooter was a 20 year old disaffected youth who didn't like the idea of either Biden or Trump being our president. He wanted to do some political violence, so he found the nearest political rally, picked up some bullets, and went looking to shoot up the crowd.
When he got there, he saw a rooftop wide open and undefended, realized he had a shot at the big guy himself, and went for it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
He's actually in the age range where it's not negligible. I don't know if he will shrug this one off.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
I'm saying that since 134981765480 and 134981765481 are mathematically distinct, a rudder made out 134981765480 atoms is formally distinct from a rudder made out of 134981765481 atoms.
I don't think I agree with that. They have different materials. I would say they both share the form of a rudder. The material is not the form. Maybe this image helps clarify?
Any 'human truth' that disregards this difference is really just a 'human heuristic' that evolved for a reason.
Well, we are talking about human morality here, and why a human understands one situation to be moral and another not to be moral.
Maybe try to apply it to something else, like the difference between a bullet in the chamber and a bullet two inches from your brain. It's like you're saying, "both situations are different forms of space-time, so why would one have moral significance from another?" But that would be generalizing out past the point of morality. Morality lies in the interplay between ideas and substances, not on the level of string vibrations where all is equal.
If you look at the situation rightly, you would recognize that a bullet heading towards your brain has a significance that a bullet in a chamber does not. And likewise, if you look at the difference between gametes and zygotes, you will see the difference of moral significance.
Once you have a conception of spacetime, you can reframe "a sperm near an egg" as a form in spacetime
You don't understand what a form is. The four causes don't depend on scientific understanding. They are a human truth, that when we say Why or How we mean four different things.
A "form in spacetime" doesn't really mean anything, or at least is so general that you can't really claim anything moral about it on its own.
An organism has an organizing principle that is distinct from the organizing principle of the egg and sperm. You have an organizing principle that has been the same since conception, even if you don't recognize it.
Edit: your ship of Theseus example just kind of show how you keep talking about a different How. The ship of Theseus is an example of swapping out a Material cause while keeping the Formal Cause the same.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
The sperm in my father and egg in my mother were not me. I don't share an identity with either. I would not be who I am without my mother. I would not be who I am without my father. The blastocyst in my mother was me because it had both genetic components.
The blastocyst relied on a particular environment, sure. So do I now. The blastocyst was pretty helpless, at times I need help as well. The blastocyst didn't have consciousness. Daily I also become unconscious.
We universally acknowledge that it is wrong to kill a sleeping human, even if they wouldn't even notice it. People speak of a continuity of consciousness that depends on the existence of consciousness prior to the unconsciousness. I think that this continuity extends backwards as well as forwards.
I think you are arguing that the blastocyst needed nutrients to grow into an adult, and a egg and sperm needed to meet in order to grow into an adult, so why is one need considered matter of fact and protected and the other need extra ordinary and not protected? I think you are conflating two different types of causes. When someone asks Why or How, there really are four different categories of causes they could be asking.
The Efficient Cause of a human is when two gametes meet and conception occurrs. There is no moral requirement for any particular human to be efficiently caused. After the gametes meet, there exists a new Formal Cause, an organism, and this formal cause is the same throughout the organisms entire lifecycle. A formal cause is what makes a thing what it is, and is the difference between a pile of chemicals and a human being. The formal cause of an organism is different from the formal causes of the gametes that existed prior.
There is a moral requirement for parents to care for their offspring as best as they are able.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
Why would morality track technological development in this way
I'm 100% pro life, so I don't think morality tracks development this way. But someone on the fence might say something like, "A fetus has significant moral worth, though not enough to balance out the singular imposition on the mother. Once that imposition is removed, there is no justification to not provide all available medical technologies to caring for the well being of the child."
both are similarly capable of developing into a human if given extensive support.
This is completely false. One already is a human organism, one is not human any more than a pile of water (35 L), carbon (20 kg), ammonia (4 L), lime (1.5 kg), phosphorus (800 g), salt (250 g), saltpeter (100 g), sulfur (80 g), fluorine (7.5 g), iron (5 g), silicon (3 g) and trace amounts of fifteen other elements.
(And braindead humans are organisms too, are they included?)
Of course. I get the feeling we're on different moral planets. I'm a human-protectionist.
sapient alien or a member of Homo Erectus pleading for his life wouldn't?
Where do you get that idea? I would extend the protection and provision of resources to not only these sapient aliens, but also their entire lifecycle from moment of whatever the equivalent of conception is for them.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
If it's a bio-ethical question, reach out to the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
Otherwise, read books on the topic, get a Spiritual Director, something in between. One time I booked an appointment with my parish priest and all he said amounted to, "Yeah, that sounds like a difficult situation."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
If baby-killing is based on whether it can be kept alive outside the mother using current technology, does this imply that the invention of full artificial wombs would turn disposal of embryos by IVF clinics into baby-killing?
Yes
For that matter, would it turn the death of sperm or eggs into baby-killing, since theoretically each sperm can survive if you can stick it into an artificial womb with an egg and have it become a child?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
Is it baby-killing to shed skin cells if the latest technology can turn them into embryos and then develop them outside a human body?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
You are conflating ignoring the potential to create a new organism with the harming of existing organisms.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
The specific problem that conservatives are deriding is when a woman has a late-term abortion but the child is still alive after the procedure. Is this a common occurrence? I don't think anyone argues for that. (Though "Most clinicians (69%) who report performing D&Es at 18 weeks last menstrual period or greater do not routinely induce fetal demise preoperatively." apparently, which changes my mind a little towards "this could be happening more often than I would guess.")
The important things to note are that:
-
It does happen occasionally. Dr. Willard Cates, then-director of abortion surveillance at the CDC, estimated “that 400 to 500 abortion live births” occurred every year in the United States.
Melissa Ohden is famously a survivor of a Saline Abortion at 31 weeks. She was saved by a nurse who heard her crying as she lay among medical waste at a US hospital. Not only does it happen, it happens to neonates who might be able to survive, if provided the same level of care that a wanted child of X gestational weeks would receive as a matter of course.
-
It seems like an obvious area where Liberals and Conservatives could come together and agree on what is right and wrong. "My body, my choice," OK, maybe Liberals really believe that. But once the child's out of the body, then it's not the mother's choice, is it? Why wouldn't such children be provided the same level of care that neonates receive in every NICU across the country?
But yet there is no agreement from the left of the aisle on this. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act has faced fierce partisan opposition. Why is this?
I don't see where you see that the sacraments are not of salvific effect. The council complains that the Greeks are treating the Latins like they defile altars when they offered the Mass, but there is no similar Latin response that treats the Greek sacraments as not salvific . I"m not sure how a valid sacrifice of the Mass cannot be salvific , if understood the Catholic way.
Also, that reading contradicts Cannon 1:
by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
Church-of-the-elect is precisely what is meant by invisible church, though.
I'm not married to that term. I need a word that signifies what the Church means by Catholic Church, and there isn't a good word to use. The Body of Christ. Can I use that phrase?
I think the conflict here is that there is a Visible Church, which sinners and people who will ultimately go to Hell belong to. People can participate in this Visible Church without knowing it, by Baptism or by other means. People who are participating in this Visible Church are possibly going to Heaven but it is not guaranteed, whether they are in the group that knows they are participating in the Visible Church or in the group that does not know they are participating in the Visible Church.
If that holds to your understanding, then great. I think the concern with "Invisible Churches" is that it makes it sound like people who end up in Hell were never part of the Church at all.
The Fourth Lateran Council is more expansive than that and is clearly not talking about emergencies. It is talking about Baptisms being administered by ministers not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It goes further in Cannon 4:
After the Church of the Greeks with some of her accomplices and supporters had severed herself from the obedience of the Apostolic See, to such an extent did the Greeks begin hating the Latins that among other things which they impiously committed derogatory to the Latins was this, that when Latin priests had celebrated upon their altars, they would not offer the sacrifice upon those altars till the altars had first been washed, as if by this they had been defiled.”
This one is saying in the same breath that the schismatic Greek priests were still able to "offer the sacrifice" i.e. perform a valid Mass and turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. While the council certainly doesn't like schism, it doesn't seem to be preaching that renouncing papal authority removes someone from the "Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
That was an embarrassing error on my part! Thank you for not making a "Catholic's can't read the Bible" joke (even though we're discussing the very document most often used to make such a claim.
Though that I made that mistake is demonstrative of something. They are such anodyne statements to me I didn't second guess when I thought you said they were direct Bible quotes.
So let's look at 74: The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head but all the saints as members.
Does it imply exclusivity? Is it saying that non-Saints cannot be members of the Church? Catholics would believe that sinners here on Earth are also a part of the Church. (And all sinners here on Earth are at risk of being damned, even if they are part of the Church.) Even if that's not what Quesnel meant to imply, maybe it was being read that way.
Part of the problem with going back to these blanket condemnations is that we don't have the same vibe they did at the time. These statements aren't all being condemned as incorrect, they are being condemned as stirring up offense, scandal, and controversy. Consider a Scissor Statement, or the phrase "One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens." Something might be truly stated, and even used in other teachings as infallible, but still cause controversy based on how different groups read it.
75 also seems to have that ambiguity that might indicate only the Saints are members of the Church.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
But I think it's still useful to try to figure out, at least, why they are wrong (or scandalous, etc.). How would you characterize the problems with 74 and 75?
I think I already explained, I don't think 74 or 75 is wrong. Instead, it was scandalous for someone to use scripture to justify their schism from the Church.
I also explained that this wasn't a teaching document, so the writers didn't feel any need to explain exactly what they didn't like about each statement. There is at least one heretical proposition in the entire document. Heaven knows what it is. (Actually, it's clearly 10-16. Those are Jansenist heresies.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
This part of my reply was lost and I will try to type it up to it's former beauty:
Going back to the Council of Florence, it is interesting that you present a Time-Gated explanation. That is not my explanation, but if it is the implicit assumption you read into the Council Statement then why not make further implicit assumptions? What I mean is, if the statement can be naturally read to signify after the time of Jesus, why couldn't it be implicitly more limited in space-time? Isn't a similarly natural read that the statement is limited to just Christendom at the time of the Council?
That's not my read though. I still stick with the well-attested Church-of-the-elect. This is not the same thing as a belief in an Invisible Church. One way of thinking about it is:
These individuals are invisibly connected to the visibile Church. A way of understanding this is to think of an American living in Paris. America is a visible place, with actual defined borders: she’s not just an invisible ideal of freedom, although her visible reality exists to support invisible notions (American values) as well as visible people (citizens, primarily). These individuals are living outside of the visible borders of America, yet are every bit as American as those of us living within her borders, and they might even be more patriotic.
Another way of thinking about it is how St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:15-16, said:
If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
Now consider the Fourth Council of Lateran:
There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation.
This one is harder to ignore that tension, because in the very same paragraph the authors state two seemingly conflicting things. How is it that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, but absolutely anyone can Baptize and this will lead to salvation? I think this demonstrates that the Church isn't overlooking this, it recognizes even back in 1215 before the Council of Florence that there is some sense in which people participate in the Catholic Church without being visible members.
Regarding the "unity of the ecclesiastical body," there is also the line from Unam Santum which is even stronger/more specific:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
How does this tie into the "invisibly connected to the visible Church" hypothesis?
-
Everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ and His Church, whether they know it or not.
-
Everyone who is saved is saved during this lifetime – there are no second-chances in the afterlife.
-
The head of the Church on Earth is the Roman Pontiff.
-
Therefore, everyone saved is saved by spiritual membership in the Church Militant, in which they are subject to the Pope.
This might sound like a less natural reading of the various texts to you, but it is the most natural reading to me given the way that the Church understood and defined herself. The definition of "Church" is very significant to the text of all these passages and I think it just means something different from what you think.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
I'm glad you recognized there was something a little weird about the Papal Bull Unigenitus. It is really weird to say that Christ is not the Head of the Church! But that's not what it says. (This is going to apply to the Condemnation of John Hus as well.)
In this Genre of Papal Condemnation, you will see a statement that declares multiple levels of condemnation. Some of these levels implies falsehood (false,...,and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen.) Some of these levels does not imply falsehood at all, but merely causes offense/scandal (captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash,...insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers.) No statement has every condemnation leveled against it. You can tell this because the condemnation at the bottom of Unigenitus includes "suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself,..., close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical." Every single item cannot be both suspected of heresy, close to heresy, and simultaneously heretical. That would be a contradiction.
The John Hus condemnation similarly has categories for "many things that are scandalous, offensive to the ears of the devout, rash and seditious." This doesn't mean false.
Why not list out exactly what level of condemnation each statement falls into? Because the Pope/Council wasn't going through the effort to define new teaching or to clear up a theological debate. They just wanted to say, "This guy sucks, his writing sucks, and no Catholic should read this garbage."
I think the statements you copied here would qualify under "offensive to pious ears." Why is that? Because they were made in the context of open rebellion against the Catholic Church. Someone who made those statements from the position of submission to the authority of the Church would not be labeled offensive to pious ears.
does Pius IX think there are people not guilty of deliberate sin?
Unfortunately he's not responding to my ouiji board (just kidding!) I think it could be a response to a pure hypothetical. “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
At the same time, he might have a stricter understanding of deliberate sin than you. A deliberate sin is one that someone fully understands is wrong and does it anyways out of their own free will, no coercion. There may indeed be some people who fall under this category, through the Grace of God, particularly those under the age of 7.
Also, a careful reading of the statement shows that he is positively declaring that this specific category can get to heaven, he's not defining people outside this category as incapable of arriving in Heaven. There may be others who have committed deliberate sins but achieved sufficient contrition to be forgiven those sins, who also go to Heaven. He's just not commenting on that aspect at this time.
Does Vatican II still allow for requiring that?
Yes, it allows that theory, but does not require Aquinas' pious opinion to be held by all. One thing this reminds me of is Sr. Faustina's visions. She wrote, “God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God absolution of sins and remission of punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! But – horror! – There are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace!”
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
To be honest, this is not one of my obsessions so my advice will mostly be what I think looks good on Google. I did pull a quote from him in the above comment, partly because of the punch it packs coming from such a "conservative" figure (if that word can be used to describe a pope from over a century ago.)
You can read his own writings at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/en.html, though you'll probably need the help of Google Translate.
I would trust this book published by Angelus Press to provide a faithful Catholic perspective: https://angeluspress.org/products/pius-ix-the-man-and-the-myth.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
When we get past the "Cathocism for Dummies" levels, it's really hard to find a book that's a one-stop shop. Here are a few topical books that might be interesting:
Mother Angelica : the remarkable story of a nun, her nerve, and a network of miracles - Biography of a nun who made the first Catholic broadcast TV network. It gives an interesting portrayal of the Church in the second half of the 20th century.
True Confessions: Voices of Faith from a Life in the Church - Recent book that came out that interviews dozens of Catholics in the American Church. From the blurb: "True Confessions is unique for its frank and in-depth interviews with 103 bishops, clergy, religious, and lay men and women from various backgrounds over a 17-month period, December 2020 through May 2022."
Fundamentals of catholic dogma - An encyclopedia used in seminaries. While the entries are helpful, the introduction has really helped me understand the different layers to Catholic Teaching and what levels of authority they hold.
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine - Essential to understand how Catholics view the continuity of doctrine, from ancient times to the present day.
The early papacy to the synod of Chalcedon in 451 - This book describes the limits Catholics place on Papal authority.
Hope at least one of these helps, let me know if you want to know more on a different topic.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
This series is a pretty off-beat musing on Power and Tyranny.
They distinguish between two forms of power: Non-Tyrannical power which is rule for the common good, and Tyrannical power, which is rule for private gain. Tyrannical power requires using others for the use of the master's end. Non-Tyrannical power is used for the good of the one on whom it is wielded.
People give up power to masters because when they believe that this giving up of power contributes to their own good. In a non-Tyranny, people cooperate together to do more things than they could have accomplished individually, and this belief is justified. In a Tyranny, often there are true believers who think they are serving the common good, while they are really being exploited. Other times, in a Tyranny people give up power by seeking their own good to protect them from a sense of danger the Tyrant has caused.
One video goes into how Bureaucracy is a requirement for a Tyranny, because it is a means by which a Tyrant is able to enact their will on a wider scale.
The series is done by a couple of Catholics and occasionally they mention Church things, but I think the series is worth listening to even if that is off putting at first.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
Since you invited a debate, here it goes:
There is a distinction in Catholicism between an infallible statement in a fallible church document. What I mean by this is a Council is only speaking infallibly when it states something in a particular formula. Usually it goes like, "We affirm, with our magisterial authority, that all inside the universal Church are bound to X." That kind of statement, and only that statement, is considered infallible. The surrounding logic or justification is not infallible. The entire document is not infallible. Things the author has said about what they meant when they stated it is not infallible. Catholic doctrine is Textualist, not Originalist.
The infallible statement in the Council of Florence is:
It firmly believes. professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life,but they will go into eternal fire… unless before the end of life they will have been joined to [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation; and fastings, alms, and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. ‘No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.’”
Sounds pretty clear-cut? Only card-carrying Catholics in Heaven? Aright, now square this statement with the more ancient belief in the Harrowing of Hell. For this statement to be infallibly professed, it also needs to be in accordance with prior infallible statements that Abraham, Elijah, and others that predated Christ are in Heaven.
Did no one see that contradiction? Actually, there has been a long history of including people inside the Church who would be very surprised to learn they were in the Catholic Church, being saved by participation in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church this whole time!
Second Clement 14:2 (c. 150 AD): “The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.”
St. Justin Martyr, Apology 1:46 (c. 150 AD): “Christ is the Logos of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:22:2 (c. 140-202 AD): “Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly… and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, 2:3 (540-604 AD): “The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow… They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church.”
When it comes to salvation for people not visibly Catholic, Vatican II didn't say anything unusual or novel. Invincible ignorance has predated Vatican 2 also and was supported by some popes you'd be surprised by. All Vatican 2 did was reaffirm it.
Pope Pius IX wrote in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeroe, predating Vatican II:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..."
Women's Sports exists much for the same reason the Special Olympics exists. It carves out a place for athletes with specific limitations to compete against others with the same specific limitations.
More options
Context Copy link