Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Identity of God.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostYou were previously speaking of Boniface, although I understand why you don't want to anymore.
Sorry, but a papal encyclical is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you consider it to be or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo problem talking about Boniface.
Not in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.
See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):
"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIn your opinion and in the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists who accuse the last six popes of heresy. You may not consider them heretical but I am inclined to accept their interpretation (and that of well respected Cardinals and periti at Vatican II) of church doctrine over yours.
[quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):
"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."[/QUOTE]
Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI already stated clearly that I reject Feeneyism. Please in the future cite me accurately and not with venom and derision.
[quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):
"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."
Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.
Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...can-be-saved-8אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostFrank, there was no venom or derision in my words. I acknowledged here that you do not accuse the most recent popes as heretical, but you do in fact believe, as do also the Feeneyites and other traditionalists, that the view expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. This is your opinion. It is also the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists. That is all I was saying here. You yourself cited a Feeneyite as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." Like you, not all Feeneyites accuse the recent popes of heresy. You are free to differentiate yourself from Feeneyites however you wish, and I am in no way contesting this. But I am only following your lead in noting the points you share in common with Feeneyites and other traditionalists.
Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...can-be-saved-8
The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism.
It is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 07:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is important to put your quote in context of the previous paragraphs, as well as other essays, to realize that Cardinal Dulles was referring to the potential who may be saved.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."
The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas.Last edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 07:41 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostYes, the potential to be saved for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, without necessarily converting to Roman Catholicism. This is indeed what we have been discussing. It seems you now agree.
Vatican II and Cardinal Dulles make explicit and clear statement in this regard that your sidestepping.
The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':
" and . . .
"One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."
The question as to how salvation 'outside the Roman Church is possible where the 'explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation' is not necessary as defined in Vatican II.
What exactly do you understand to be Feeneyism?
This statement addresses Fenneyism: 'The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.'
But, as I'm sure you would agree, Baha'i adherents should not misunderstand or misrepresent the teaching of the other religions they look down upon.
Is that accurate? Is it the case that (some?) Bahai' adherents 'look down upon' other religions, or have I misunderstood?
Would you agree that the Baha'i (religion? faith? philosophy?) is also an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine?
This relates to the difference in a fundamental basis of a religion as kataphatic as opposed to an apophatic view of God and the understanding of scripture, Doctrine and Dogma.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 07:59 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostCareful. I do not agree with your understanding of these issues. If you read ALL of Cardinal Dulles' essay in context, he does not agree with you either.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFeeneyism is a very radical rejection of any Salvation outside the Church. It does not accept Baptism outside the Church, and does not accept for the most part any Salvation outside the Church as defined and clarified in Vatican II. In fact it considers Vatican II as heresy.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe Baha'i Faith places the different religions and beliefs in higher regard, and spiritual positive nature then anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity. Your qualification of '(some?) Baha'i adherents' lacks a useable context of what a religion believes. It may be said that (some?) adherents of any religion and belief may believe anything. No context here for further discussion.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI certainly do not disagree with Dulles' characterization of Catholic teaching.
Some Feeneyites would disagree with this characterization.
It is a question asked in such a way as not to be offensive. Do you look down upon other religions?
I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal spiritual context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation is offensive, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion.
I also think you are underestimating the views of some Roman Catholic theologians.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 08:24 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe I have cited Cardinal Dulles views in his essays in clearer manner then you did referencing on paragraph.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSome?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Postbolded: NO! The way you worded this previously lacks context for further discussion. The context of your statement and question needs more context to be remotely a question of true dialogue. HOW are you referring to 'looking down' in a context of Baha'i beliefs?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSeparate issue. Don not mix apples and oranges.Last edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 08:49 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Lest this be misunderstood, it may be helpful to some if I quote more from this essay of my friend, Cardinal Dulles, who agrees with another Cardinal of the Church:
"The most sophisticated theological argument against the conviction that some human beings in fact go to hell has been proposed by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book He rejects the ideas that hell will be emptied at the end of time and that the damned souls and demons will be reconciled with God. He also avoids asserting as a fact that everyone will be saved. But he does say that we have a right and even a duty to hope seems to me to be orthodox
Unhappily, I never met Cardinal Balthasar, who actually died a couple of days prior to the ceremony, but I did read his earlier book. It is worth noting that he was in some disfavor prior to Vatican II but that even after the council he was generally considered among the relatively conservative of the leading Catholic theologians of his time. Avery goes on to cite a statement of John Paul II indicating that he had "at least an openness to the opinion that we may hope for the salvation of all." In his own opinion, "the Pope seems to have shifted his position, adopting in effect that of Balthasar":
"Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...lation-of-hellLast edited by robrecht; 04-20-2014, 11:12 AM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostAnyone can cite more of his views. I cited only the part that I considered directly relevant to our initial point of discussion, ie, whether or not Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church.
I purposefully did not want to misrepresent the beliefs of some or all Baha'i adherents and did not even know whether to refer to 'it' as a religion, faith, or philosophy, hence my other question. It is merely an invitation for you to present your own explanation of the Baha'i religion/faith/philosophy and how you may or may not look down upon other religions, however you may want to use/reject/define that phrase. It is fine if you do not want to discuss this. I merely gave you an invitation.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
I think it is a very important issue, and very much related to my perspective on our discussion. You did say "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity." You do not have to discuss this if you do not want to.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2014, 12:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst the Baha'i is a religion centered on Mount Carmel in Haifa Israel, which began in 1844 in present day Iran. Second, the derogatory statement is the wrong way to introduce a discussion on the Baha'i. It is relevant to the thread in the vein of the concept od 'What is the Identity of God?' in contrasting religions that have a fundamental kataphatic view of a 'Source' some call God(s) like Christianity, and other religions that are fundamentally apophatic like the Baha'i Faith, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the Vedic traditions of the Brahman. Though in contemporary Buddhism many try to define the absence of the 'Source', ie Zen, and contemporary Hindu beliefs which try to define and animate God(s).
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostExactly what I said, the origin of this accusation has to be from other religions, which object to the Baha'i Faith. It is a justified questions as to why and the origin of this negative phrase and the context of those that believe it.
But I was asking you about your statement: "I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion."
Is the accusation you are referring to contained therein?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
611 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment