According to Catholic teaching, the ruler was saved.

I doubt this. What is your basis for this assertion?


I do not know if the use of the rich ruler to support works of supererogation goes back all the way to Aquinas, but it certainly goes back to (St.) Bellarmine.

To be fair, I have not read Bellarmine first-hand but have read several others attributing this reasoning to him. One on-line example:

http://www.imarc.cc/br/br2/ wesle...sley25ar11.html


Even if your sources are correct and Bellarmine taught this, that by itself only means that this was Bellarmine's personal opinion, not that it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that the Catholics venerate Bellarmine as a saint does not mean that his every opinion has the status of Catholic doctrine (after all, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception without forfeiting his status as a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church). So this is not really enough evidence to say According to Catholic teaching. Unless the Catechism of the Catholic Church or some other authoritative source on official Catholic teaching indicates that this Scriptural interpretation is definitive for Catholics, it would be better to say Some Catholic theologians say ...

As you know, I am a Lutheran and carry no brief for Catholicism (and in particular I reject their teaching on merit). But we ought to be fair to our opponents and characterize their teachings accurately.


Chris,

At some level you ask the impossible. The Catholic Church is not obligated to explain, through detailed biblical exegesis, why it teaches of supererogatory works, precisely because of its alternative source: sacred tradition. So in many cases we must deduce where the idea originated. If you do a search like this one you will see that what I wrote is common and non-controversial.

Incidentally, if I were a Catholic I would certainly use that passage for support, for on face value it works quite nicely.


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ? 

 

Commenting by HaloScan