In today's gospel, Jesus answer to the question, "Will only a few be saved?" is to tell the disciples to focus about working out their own salvation in fear and trembling, rather than vainly speculating on questions that you don't know enough to answer.
Because if you neglect the task of working out your own salvation and waste your time speculating, then others are going to enter the kingdom and you will be shut out of it.
Also, speculating about what percentage of the human race will be saved is not *hoping* for anything. It just amounts to using non-revealed and dubious philosophical premises to justify what you think would do if you were God. A dangerous endeavor.
And if God really does will to save many or all people, then he likely wills to do it through secondary causes -- ie. your prayers and evangelization. Which is why we *love* everyone by praying and evangelizing for their salvation.
So, as St. Francis Xavier pointed out in his famous letter to St. Ignatius -- instead of sitting in the university and speculating about whether all will be saved, it is better to go and actually, baptize people, being the instrument through which God saves people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pointing out that the Church does not require us to believe (or disbelieve) in evolution and then concluding that we are "free" to believe in it or disbelieve in it is to completely misunderstand what doctrine is and its relation to truth.
Catholic doctrine is one way of coming to know the truth about some aspects of reality; so is modern science. "God is one nature subsisting in three persons" is true in exactly the same sense as "Human beings evolved from lower primates."
And assent to Catholic doctrine is not an act of obedience of the will by which we commit ourselves to an ideology. It is an act of judgment by the intellect which conforms our mind to reality -- just like modern science.
I'm finishing up a novena to St. Ann in my hometown (the parish has been doing it for 106 years!). I have been preaching on Mary, and I have to recommend Aidan Nichols, "There Is No Rose" as a short but deep Mariology.
Aidan Nichols has a gift for finding the truly decisive points of an issue and explaining them lucidly. So, Nichols book is short, nut surprisibgly deep for its length.
Haucke's "Introduction to Mariology" is a really good comprehensive survey with a complere bibliigraphy. However, its breadth means that it is not very deep.
Mary doesn't mediate in the sense that we go to her instead of going to Jesus directly, the way we deal with a front-office secretary to have access to the big boss. Rather, Mary is like someone who makes an introduction to a friend -- she in no way gets in between us and Jesus.
And there is no reason to suppose that this type of mediation is unbiblical, or that the Bible somehow teaches us that these kinds of mediators don't exist when it comes to Jesus.
In fact, it's quite the opposite: in the Bible, people introduce each other to Jesus, and there is nothing to prevent the saints from doing this as well, because we believe that the Church is one communion of saints -- of those in heaven and on earth.
So, someone on here was asking me about what Bañez says about whether God's antecedent will to save all is in him formally (and analogically) or merely eminently (and metaphorically). I can't find the tweet, so I am responding here.
Banez' argues for and against both sides of the question, but comes down on the latter side of the question. God wills all be saved is his will of expression, not his will of good pleasure. God wills all be saved means that God enjoins on us the precept to will that all be saved.
No, the point of the magisterium is *not* to eliminate personal interpretation, because, obviously, you cannot eliminate personal interpretation. If you read a text, you have to determine it's meaning. The whole problem here is the use of the word "interpret."
When the Church says that it is for the magisterium to interpret the Word of God as this is contained in the desposit of faith, she means something very specific:
The magisterium reads Scripture in the light of tradition and formulates a proposition, proposing to the faithful to be believed as having been divinely revealed. In so doing, the magisterium functions ministerially in proposing the material object of what we believe in faith.
If you recall Grillo's remarks about Bl. Carlo Acutis, Grillo actually does think that the two forms of the Roman rite really do embody two different theologies of the Eucharist.
For him the two rites are two different leges orandi precisely because they are two different leges credendi, and that's why you can't have two different leges orandi.
The real problem here is the abuse and over-use (in a de-historicized way) of the principle "lex orandi, lex credendi." When Pope Celestine coined the idea he meant that liturgical affirmations like "Theotokos" were also creedal affirmations.