CathInfo.com

Quote from: Augustinian

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Augustinian

Do you believe that the unbaptized (particularly children) are innocent of any damnable sin, painless, in bliss, and in the presence of God?

I believe what is de fide.

Do you believe you are an Inquisitor?

That's an evasive answer. Do you believe in those Pelagian heresies or not? If you don't, then you should have no problem professing your Catholic faith and condemning those Pelagian doctrines.

I'm not an official Inquisitor in the "court of the Inquisition" sense, no. I am an inquirer and defender of the teachings of the Catholic Church, as all Catholics are supposed to be.

I profess the Faith, and I defend it. I adhere to no heresies and I condemn all heresies that Holy Mother Church condemns.

Do you think that St Thomas held beliefs that are heretical?

Yet you refuse to answer regarding the Pelagian doctrines.

Thomas held several heretical beliefs, some of which were heretical prior to his birth (ex: Pelagianism) and some of which were heresy only after his death (ex: denial of the Immaculate Conception). Thomas was condemned for several counts of heresy in 1277.

But I BELIEVE the Franciscan defenders of this dogma were also scholastics, correct?

Not all of them. Most of them adopted their own form of anti-Thomist Scholasticism after Bonaventure adopted it. Alexander of Hales was a Scholastic before him, but it wasn't really until Bonaventure (and later Duns Scotus) that it became very widespread among Franciscans. Not all of the Dominicans were Scholastics at first either.

St. Francis and St. Dominic were not Scholastics either. Men like Bonaventure, Scotus, and Thomas departed from the spirit and intentions of the founders of these orders. Sitting in a university babbling about metaphysics and the cosmos is exactly the opposite of what St. Dominic and St. Francis envisioned for their orders.

I am not against Scholasticism per se. It is a fully coherent system of christian philosophical thought and has its place, for sure. The problem for me is when certain theologians appear to deny, or to mitigate, what the dogmas of the church and the teaching of the popes had been for 800 years.

It's a most incoherent system of perverse Greek rationalist syncretism. Essentially the "modernism" of the 1200's. That is why certain theologians deny and mitigate the dogmas of the Church and the teachings of the popes prior to the Scholastic era - they're modernists.

This is why the traditionalist movement is going nowhere, and why Pius X utterly failed in his mission to stop 20th century modernism; they're trying to fight 20th century modernism with 13th century modernism. Two sides of the same coin.

Isn't that the opposite of tradition?

The opposite of tradition would be opposing Apostolic Tradition, which (according to all the early councils) the unanimous teachings of the fathers gives witness to, and the dogmatic teachings of the popes and councils. Certainly many theologians (especially Dominicans and most of the Jesuits later on) departed from tradition when they adopted Thomistic-Greek Pelagianism, even in the face of the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent.