Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on March 27, 2014, 11:27:30 AM
-
Practically all the believers in EENS as it is written, have stated repeatedly that there is no point in discussing the innocuous theories of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet for BODers like LOT, Ambrose and all others, 99% of what they post is about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood.
And they complain about too many BOD threads? We've told them continuously and ad-nauseum that we are not discussing BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and yet they continue to post only about BOD & BOB of the catechumen. What's with that?
If one looks at what is actually written by BODers here on CI, and also at all the so-called "traditionalist" BODers websites and books, 99.99% of the evidence they post is about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, meanwhile, they don't even believe that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire for martyrdom, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation. Those books and websites all end up teaching something which is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint or council. (the teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity). Yet they NEVER address the fact that it is opposed to every source (Father, Doctor, Saint, Council) that they sight in defense of BOD & BOB of the catechumen.
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
-
What about instead of an outright ban on BoD threads we petition Matthew for a subforum? That way those threads can go into there and the crisis forum could stay general. Those who want to participate can find them easily and those who don't won't have to complain about page 1 of the crisis forum being a wall of BoD threads.
Luke
-
Do I detect a sore loser ?
-
To steal a quote from Fr. Wathen and adapting it to explain the reality our situation today (my addition in blue):
This doctrine (that for salvation one must, at the very least, explicitly desire to be baptized or martyred, or explicitly desire to be a Catholic, and explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity) is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
Without that doctrine, it is 1959 all over again for traditionalist, like the movie "Groundhog Day", they will keep repeating the loss of the faith by their children and young priests, and a new and smaller revival of traditionalism after all the craziness starts to show. We are at that point now with the SSPX, it's 1959 all over again. If they can teach their seminarians that all the clear dogmas on EENS and Baptism do not mean what they say, then accepting ambiguous Vatican II "in light of tradition" is a piece of cake for those young priests.
-
If people want to debate on it then I see no reason why they should not be allowed to and start a thread on it.
However, it is annoying to see every other thread on just about any topic immediately dissolve into a debate over BOD.
It is almost like an OCD event here.
-
What about instead of an outright ban on BoD threads we petition Matthew for a subforum? That way those threads can go into there and the crisis forum could stay general. Those who want to participate can find them easily and those who don't won't have to complain about page 1 of the crisis forum being a wall of BoD threads.
Luke
I didn't petition Matthew to ban all BOD threads. Read what I wrote. What I said was that if the discussions about BOD and BOB of the catechumen are eliminated, that 99% of the so-called BOD threads would disappear.
-
I think I can see the distinction you are making bowler, I am not sure if any thread would stay on topic for any length of time. I guess we will see what Matthew thinks, If he gets sick of this topic maybe we will get a temp ban on the BoD topic and revisit it in a month.
Luke
-
I think I can see the distinction you are making bowler, I am not sure if any thread would stay on topic for any length of time.
If every time a BODer posts another article or posting about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, one would shine the light upon their smokescreen, they would have to eventually address the issue (stay on topic) or hide. Here's an example answer for anyone to copy, adapt to their style and paste:
Total smokescreen. Typical BODer diatribe, 99.99% talking about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, meanwhile they don't even believe that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire for martyrdom, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. That BODer belief in salvation without explicit belief in Christ, is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint or council.
How's that for dishonesty and deceit!
It takes the cake.
-
As you know, I've pointed out myriad times that the ONLY thing that Faith of Desire advocates have is their (mis)interpretation of Quanto Confiriamur. I've gone through the list and have pointed out that every other source is referring specifically to catechumens.
-
Nothing matters to the LoT's, Ambroses and SJBs of the (CI) world because they are either willfully dishonest or obstinately blind - or both. They've done this to themselves and choose to remain in that state.
They have gone to great lengths to convince everyone that they despise the sacraments, promote Faith of Desire and are Heroin BODers, - and they have their supporters here. The real issue is that they know they are hypocrites but they will not come out and admit it already. Who knows how many they've managed to fool.
The point is, there is no point in debating dishonest participants. You show them infallible teachings from the mouth of God and they argue against God's teachings with heretic theologian teachings and text books. They only get worse as time goes by.
LoT just started yet another thread, PURPOSELY rejecting the necessity of the sacraments. What more proof is needed that they have no intention of converting to the truth?
-
If heresy and errors against the Faith were banned from this Catholic forum, that would solve the problem immediately.
-
If heresy and errors against the Faith were banned from this Catholic forum, that would solve the problem immediately.
Softball right over the plate. In fact, I don't even need to swing for that one to go right back out of the park.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Why don't you start by admitting that all the Vatican II errors derive from the denial of EENS?
Anything else is incredibly dishonest and insincere on your part.
-
Nothing matters to the LoT's, Ambroses and SJBs of the (CI) world because they are either willfully dishonest or obstinately blind - or both. They've done this to themselves and choose to remain in that state.
They have gone to great lengths to convince everyone that they despise the sacraments, promote Faith of Desire and are Heroin BODers, - and they have their supporters here. The real issue is that they know they are hypocrites but they will not come out and admit it already. Who knows how many they've managed to fool.
The point is, there is no point in debating dishonest participants. You show them infallible teachings from the mouth of God and they argue against God's teachings with heretic theologian teachings and text books. They only get worse as time goes by.
LoT just started yet another thread, PURPOSELY rejecting the necessity of the sacraments. What more proof is needed that they have no intention of converting to the truth?
Nothing matters to the LoT's, Ambroses and SJBs of the (CI) world because they are either willfully dishonest or obstinately blind - or both. They've done this to themselves and choose to remain in that state
The above posters are champions of the faith. They hang in there to defend the Church's teachings on this subject. Kudos to you guys! You do a great job defending the true teachings of the church ! Im praying that this subject gets banned soon!
-
The above posters are champions of heresy.
There. Fixed it for you.
-
The above posters as well as many traditional Catholics imagine themselves fighting Modernism but they are not even aware or better yet, are in stubborn denial of the root of the crisis: mainly the distortion of BOD, which justify invincible ignorance, which itself allows salvation for non-Catholics, which is a denial of EESN, which is part of Modernism, a condemned heresy. All conciliar popes have fallen into this heresy.
After Vatican II, we have a protestantized version of Catholicism in all levels, mainly due to the global call to ecuмenism. Ironically, Traditional Catholics have responded to the protestantized version of Catholicism by adopting a protestant attitude themselves, even letting themselves be blinded by personal interpretation and sentiment. They believe in an invisible Church composed of invisible members that take spiritual, invisible Sacraments. But whoever embraces ecuмenism and universal salvation, opposes the only true religion. Ecunemism / Universal Salvation is not the conversion of Protestants and non-believers to Catholicism, by no means, on the contrary, it is the conversion of once good Catholics, to Protestantism, while they masquerade as true believers in the Catholic Church.
The denial of EESN is the heresy of Pope Francis, as well as of all the other conciliar Popes.
-
If heresy and errors against the Faith were banned from this Catholic forum, that would solve the problem immediately.
Softball right over the plate. In fact, I don't even need to swing for that one to go right back out of the park.
:roll-laugh1:
Will you admit that you learn your theology from the Dimonds?
-
Practically all the believers in EENS as it is written, have stated repeatedly that there is no point in discussing the innocuous theories of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet for BODers like LOT, Ambrose and all others, 99% of what they post is about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood.
And they complain about too many BOD threads? We've told them continuously and ad-nauseum that we are not discussing BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and yet they continue to post only about BOD & BOB of the catechumen. What's with that?
If one looks at what is actually written by BODers here on CI, and also at all the so-called "traditionalist" BODers websites and books, 99.99% of the evidence they post is about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, meanwhile, they don't even believe that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire for martyrdom, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation. Those books and websites all end up teaching something which is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint or council. (the teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity). Yet they NEVER address the fact that it is opposed to every source (Father, Doctor, Saint, Council) that they sight in defense of BOD & BOB of the catechumen.
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
See what I mean that 99% of all BODer postings disappear when BOD of the catechumen is not discussed. They have nothing to say when confronted with the fact of everything I wrote above.
-
LoT just started yet another thread, PURPOSELY rejecting the necessity of the sacraments. What more proof is needed that they have no intention of converting to the truth?
Nothing matters to the LoT's, Ambroses and SJBs of the (CI) world because they are either willfully dishonest or obstinately blind - or both. They've done this to themselves and choose to remain in that state
The above posters are champions of the faith. They hang in there to defend the Church's teachings on this subject. Kudos to you guys! You do a great job defending the true teachings of the church ! Im praying that this subject gets banned soon!
Defending a BOD by rejecting the necessity of the sacraments - and you call them champions of the faith.
If those are champions of the faith, who do you say the enemies of the faith are - those who defend the necessity of the sacraments?
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
You KNOW that for you and all the BODers here, it is an absolute impossibility to do the strictly Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments. You've completely fallen flat on your face in your defense of them by ignoring the challenge that's over 13 weeks old now. You can't even be honest with yourselves.
And well gee, salvation via a BOD, which is no sacrament at all, is defending necessity of the sacraments, how?
You Cushing followers remain as hypocritical as ever, you will never learn.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
Let me see. Someone can be saved without receiving any of the Sacraments. By definition, then, the Sacraments are unnecessary for salvation. I guess by necessary you mean that Baptism is necessary to come into "full communion" with the Catholic Church, in the words of your mentors in the Faith, the V2 popes.
-
Heh. The OP just simply doesn't get it, and his anger should really best be directed at his own self, since he himself is the cause of his own consternation.
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism. This idea leads to all sorts of heretical consequences, including about the OT just. Many members here, on their pretended authority or deceived by their arguments hold to a similar view, or some slight variant thereof.
Therefore, proving that catechumens and martyrs can be saved, (and it is Catholic doctrine that they can, at least since the time of the pronouncements of Innocent II and III, not to mention Trent. All Doctors since that time are unanimous, and Saints Bernard and Bonaventure actually opposed the heretical Peter Abelard on this point) is to prove their entire soteriology wrong. And therefore it is necessary to do that.
That souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood cannot be called into question without objective mortal sin. It is doctrine, referred to in canon law as well, that the sacrament of baptism, like the sacrament of penance, is necessary in fact or in desire.
The real question should be how explicit must the faith of those who are saved by baptism of desire be. This is the only question the Doctors regarded as open after the medieval pronouncements of the Magisterium and discussed among themselves in the schools and in their writings. No one other than the followers of Fr. Feeney, or the Dimonds or whomever, are to be blamed for confusing the issues.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
You KNOW that for you and all the BODers here, it is an absolute impossibility to do the strictly Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments. You've completely fallen flat on your face in your defense of them by ignoring the challenge that's over 13 weeks old now. You can't even be honest with yourselves.
And well gee, salvation via a BOD, which is no sacrament at all, is defending necessity of the sacraments, how?
You Cushing followers remain as hypocritical as ever, you will never learn.
I have been defending the necessity of the sacraments, just not Dimond/Feenryite heretical ideas on the sacraments. I have no desire to be a heretic.
I am no follower of Cushing, but nice try at diverting from the real issue.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
Let me see. Someone can be saved without receiving any of the Sacraments. By definition, then, the Sacraments are unnecessary for salvation. I guess by necessary you mean that Baptism is necessary to come into "full communion" with the Catholic Church, in the words of your mentors in the Faith, the V2 popes.
There is a moral necessity to receive the sacraments. The sacrament of Baptism is necessary, but in the event that one dies, his desire accompanied by supernatural Faith and charity are sufficient.
This does not contradict with the Church's teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments, it complements the teaching.
It is necessary that you abstain from servile work on Sunday, but if your car has a flat tire you can change it.
It is necessary for you to confess mortal sins, but God will forgive you if you make a perfect act of contrition.
It is necessary for all to receive Baptism, but for those who desire to receive the sacrament, and die prior to receiving it, the intention accompanied by the other conditions is sufficient for salvation.
-
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism. This idea leads to all sorts of heretical consequences, including about the OT just.
Nonsense. Several of the Church Fathers explicitly state that the "seal" of Baptism is required for salvation. Pius XII even said that Baptism is the equivalent of Holy Orders in that regard. They are both character Sacraments. And one can no more have Baptism of Desire than Holy Orders of Desire. What does the Baptismal character do? It provides the supernatural faculties without which one cannot have the beatific vision, since with our natural faculties we are incapable of it. It's not just some kind of ineffectual "mark", a badge of honor which some people in heaven have and some don't. It's what conforms the soul to the likeness of Our Lord so that Our Father recognizes that soul as His son, in the "spirit of adoption" spoken of in the Sacred Scripture. It's what allows the soul to enter into the inner life of the Holy Trinity. You on the other hand reduce the Sacramental character as a triviality with little or no meaning.
In fact, the case of the OT just PROVES that something besides supernatural faith and charity are required for entry into heaven. St. Joseph, despite his sanctity, could not enter into heaven because SOMETHING was missing. What was that something? It was this supernatural character. For the OT just this character was granted in an extraordinary manner by Our Lord, but in the new dispensation it can only come through Baptism.
-
There is a moral necessity to receive the sacraments.
See, your false position leads to one egregious error after another. Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means according to the universal consensus of theologians, and not by necessity of precept (aka your "moral necessity"). You reject one Catholic truth after another to justify your false position.
Even most BoDers acknowledge this fact. Trent, when treating of Confession, explicitly states that Confession (by way of desire) is NECESSARY for a return to the state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall and that perfect contrition alone does not suffice.
-
It is necessary for you to confess mortal sins, but God will forgive you if you make a perfect act of contrition.
Yet another error. Perfect contrition does not suffice without the Desire for Confession. Cf. Trent.
-
Stubborn is quite correct when he says that you deny the necessity of the Sacraments and are on that count a heretic (contradicting the dogmatic teaching of Trent). Even most BoDers realize this and at least say that Baptism is required (by way of desire). Your formulation is heretical.
-
Stubborn is quite correct when he says that you deny the necessity of the Sacraments and are on that count a heretic (contradicting the dogmatic teaching of Trent). Even most BoDers realize this and at least say that Baptism is required (by way of desire). Your formulation is heretical.
The Council of Trent explicitly teaches the necessity of the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments.
You can make up theology all day, but it will not make it true. Read Trent again without an agenda.
-
There is a moral necessity to receive the sacraments.
See, your false position leads to one egregious error after another. Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means according to the universal consensus of theologians, and not by necessity of precept (aka your "moral necessity"). You reject one Catholic truth after another to justify your false position.
Even most BoDers acknowledge this fact. Trent, when treating of Confession, explicitly states that Confession (by way of desire) is NECESSARY for a return to the state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall and that perfect contrition alone does not suffice.
It is a necessity of means, I did not say otherwise like you pretend. You obviously did not read my post.
Is it necessary to confess mortal sins? Can a man be saved who is guilty of mortal sin without the sacrament of Penance? How can a man be saved when the sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen into mortal sin?
-
It is necessary for you to confess mortal sins, but God will forgive you if you make a perfect act of contrition.
Yet another error. Perfect contrition does not suffice without the Desire for Confession. Cf. Trent.
A perfect act of contrition is accompanied by the desire for the sacrament.
-
It is a necessity of means, I did not say otherwise like you pretend. You obviously did not read my post.
Uhm, you called it "moral" necessity and then likened it to various moral laws like abstaining from menial labor on Sundays. Just one lie after another from you, Ambrose.
Is it necessary to confess mortal sins? Can a man be saved who is guilty of mortal sin without the sacrament of Penance? How can a man be saved when the sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen into mortal sin?
Trent clearly teaches that such a one can be returned to a state of justification with perfect contrition COMBINED WITH the desire for Confession, and the Sacrament is NECESSARY by way of desire. It does not teach that about Baptism (prefacing the entire treatment of Confession with a statement about how much the two sacraments differ). Your statement that perfect contrition alone suffices (without the Sacrament of Confession at least by way of desire) is heretical.
-
It is necessary for you to confess mortal sins, but God will forgive you if you make a perfect act of contrition.
Yet another error. Perfect contrition does not suffice without the Desire for Confession. Cf. Trent.
A perfect act of contrition is accompanied by the desire for the sacrament.
Then why did Trent spell that out explicitly? In fact, the original formulation in Trent would have left it at "perfect contrition" [alone] but the Pope actively intervened and forced them to add explicit mention of the desire for Confession to reinforce the fact that Confession was necessary for the return to justification after post-Baptismal fall into grave sin.
-
It is a necessity of means, I did not say otherwise like you pretend. You obviously did not read my post.
Uhm, you called it "moral" necessity and then likened it to various moral laws like abstaining from menial labor on Sundays. Just one lie after another from you, Ambrose.
Is it necessary to confess mortal sins? Can a man be saved who is guilty of mortal sin without the sacrament of Penance? How can a man be saved when the sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen into mortal sin?
Trent clearly teaches that such a one can be returned to a state of justification with perfect contrition COMBINED WITH the desire for Confession, and the Sacrament is NECESSARY by way of desire. It does not teach that about Baptism (prefacing the entire treatment of Confession with a statement about how much the two sacraments differ). Your statement that perfect contrition alone suffices (without the Sacrament of Confession at least by way of desire) is heretical.
No lies. I am trying, without any success, to show you that God judges both externals and internals. God knows your desires, he knows what you are thinking. He is not limited in his judgment by external acts.
I never said perfect contrition alone suffices. I said that the desire for the sacrament accompanies perfect contrition.
Read and learn from the Church about perfect contrition HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=2GcQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=perfect+act+of+contrition+desire+sacrament&source=bl&ots=3UCvbawm4Z&sig=QKcEcDMNrlpt_EAYeBC_7Xme53M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c3k1U4qGCKausASyi4CIDw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=perfect%20act%20of%20contrition%20desire%20sacrament&f=false)
-
It is necessary for you to confess mortal sins, but God will forgive you if you make a perfect act of contrition.
Yet another error. Perfect contrition does not suffice without the Desire for Confession. Cf. Trent.
A perfect act of contrition is accompanied by the desire for the sacrament.
Then why did Trent spell that out explicitly? In fact, the original formulation in Trent would have left it at "perfect contrition" [alone] but the Pope actively intervened and forced them to add explicit mention of the desire for Confession to reinforce the fact that Confession was necessary for the return to justification after post-Baptismal fall into grave sin.
Read the link I just gave you.
-
Ambrose, I invite you to affirm the following statement:
"Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation."
Whether you decide to try adding (at least by way of desire) I'm not going to press right now. Stubborn has challenged you guys to affirm this, but you absolutely refuse.
So I'll make it easy for you.
Do you agree with the statement:
"Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation."?
These words have not once emanated from your keyboard.
-
Ambrose, I invite you to affirm the following statement:
"Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation."
Whether you decide to try adding (at least by way of desire) I'm not going to press right now. Stubborn has challenged you guys to affirm this, but you absolutely refuse.
So I'll make it easy for you.
Do you agree with the statement:
"Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.?"
These words have not once emanated from your keyboard.
Yes. I believe now, and have always believed, that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.
I have urged you repeatedly to read Msgr. Fenton's book and articles on this topic. Why would I do that if I did not believe that Baptism was not a necessity of means? I have said over and over again that my view is identical to Fenton's explanation.
-
Why would I do that if I did not believe that Baptism was not a necessity of means?
Uhm, because you just posted how you considered it to be a "moral necessity" and likened it to various moral precepts which didn't always bind (like not working on Sundays).
-
I have urged you repeatedly to read Msgr. Fenton's book and articles on this topic.
Msgr. Fenton's work is a masterpiece in double-speak. You can tell he's conflicted by having to reconcile Suprema haec with actual Catholic teachings. He admits that Catechumens were never considered part of "the faithful", and that there's a dogmatic definition that there's no salvation "outside the Church of the faithful", but then concludes that they somehow belong to the Church of the faithful without actually being one of the faithful.
-
Why would I do that if I did not believe that Baptism was not a necessity of means?
Uhm, because you just posted how you considered it to be a "moral necessity" and likened it to various moral precepts which didn't always bind (like not working on Sundays).
The necessity of Baptism binds the individual to receive Baptism (moral necessity) It is sinful to postpone baptsim unnecessarily.
Baptism is also required by a necessity of means, not merely a precept. This necessity can be substituted by the Baptism of Desire or Blood.
When I likened Baptism of Desire to those examples, I was trying to show you that God knows men's hearts. He is not limited to external observances. If you do not grasp this, you will not grasp how Baptism of Desire works.
-
I have urged you repeatedly to read Msgr. Fenton's book and articles on this topic.
Msgr. Fenton's work is a masterpiece in double-speak. You can tell he's conflicted by having to reconcile Suprema haec with actual Catholic teachings. He admits that Catechumens were never considered part of "the faithful", and that there's a dogmatic definition that there's no salvation "outside the Church of the faithful", but then concludes that they somehow belong to the Church of the faithful without actually being one of the faithful.
I don't think you understand his works if you think they are double speak.
Catechumens are most certainly not part of the Church. The Church is a visible society, and catechumens are not members of this visible society.
That does not conflict with EENS or the necessity of Baptism. Fenton is brilliant in that he explains an area of theology that always existed but was not explained in detail. There is nothing new in his explanations, only further precision.
-
There is nothing new in his explanations, only further precision.
Yes, that's always the line, that it's refinement of the dogma. Yet somehow the dogma has gotten "refined" to the point that most people (like yourself) calls us heretical for not believing the OPPOSITE of EENS.
EENS has been "precisioned" into the OPPOSITE OF EENS.
-
I can see in the last post why you Diamond followers think the way you do.
All members of this forum believes in the necessity of the Sacraments. BOB and BOD are TEACHINGS of the Church. Did you get it? Teachings of the Church since antiquity. The Church also explains these teachings as she does all of her doctrines. These doctrines have been perverted by the Conciliar Church as have all doctrines.
He likes to pretend that believing in the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is somehow not defending the necessity of the sacraments.
You KNOW that for you and all the BODers here, it is an absolute impossibility to do the strictly Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments. You've completely fallen flat on your face in your defense of them by ignoring the challenge that's over 13 weeks old now. You can't even be honest with yourselves.
And well gee, salvation via a BOD, which is no sacrament at all, is defending necessity of the sacraments, how?
You Cushing followers remain as hypocritical as ever, you will never learn.
I have been defending the necessity of the sacraments, just not Dimond/Feenryite heretical ideas on the sacraments. I have no desire to be a heretic.
I am no follower of Cushing, but nice try at diverting from the real issue.
If you're defending the necessity of the sacraments then I'm defending a BOD for salvation.
You follow Cushing's teachings to a "T" = you are a follower of Cushing.
-
[The Anonymous Christian is one] who even though he is a non-Christian is justified through the grace of Christ and through a faith, hope and love for God and mankind which are to be qualified as specifically Christian in a special sense, even though this triad, constitutiting the single way to salvation and possession of salvation, is something of which they are not objectively aware in the sense of consciously explicating their specifically Christian dimension to themselves.
-
I trace a course of development from the optimism concerning salvation for the unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and baptism can suffice...Whatever may be the course of this development, whatever theological grounds there may be for justifying it, it can in all events be said that at least since the Second Vatican Council there can no longer be any room for doubt that the Catholic Church, as a matter of her conscious faith, positively asserts that it is possible for the non-Christian to attain salvation, though at the same time it declares that such salvation is achieved in ways that are known to God alone.
He doesn't mention St. Augustine because he himself wrote a work in which he admitted that St. Augustine had retracted his opinion.
-
[The Anonymous Christian is one] who even though he is a non-Christian is justified through the grace of Christ and through a faith, hope and love for God and mankind which are to be qualified as specifically Christian in a special sense, even though this triad, constitutiting the single way to salvation and possession of salvation, is something of which they are not objectively aware in the sense of consciously explicating their specifically Christian dimension to themselves.
Ladi, Rahner does not mention any necessity of adherence to natural law and divine law. He also talks about "faith, hope and love for God and mankind which are to be qualified as specifically Christian in a special sense" which is in no way orthodox, especially given it comes from Rahner.
You are a simpleton and a waste of time.
-
This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council.
-
especially given it comes from Rahner.
So you say the same thing as Rahner and it's OK, but Rahner is wrong on the basis of his being Rahner.
-
I trace a course of development from the optimism concerning salvation for the unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and baptism can suffice...Whatever may be the course of this development, whatever theological grounds there may be for justifying it, it can in all events be said that at least since the Second Vatican Council there can no longer be any room for doubt that the Catholic Church, as a matter of her conscious faith, positively asserts that it is possible for the non-Christian to attain salvation, though at the same time it declares that such salvation is achieved in ways that are known to God alone.
He doesn't mention St. Augustine because he himself wrote a work in which he admitted that St. Augustine had retracted his opinion.
The idea that a man not a formal member of the Church can be saved isn't the main thrust of Vatican II. This is your position and it is incorrect. Vatican II allowed everything not yet defined to be called into question. Oddly, that is your error as well.
If you followed the pre -V2 manualists, who you despise, you'd reject Modernist ideas in a manner consistent with tradition.
-
Since the position of the German-language bishops was regularly adopted by the Council, a single theologian might have his views accepted by the whole Council if they had been accepted by the German-speaking bishops. There was such a theologian, Father Karl Rahner, S.J.
-
especially given it comes from Rahner.
So you say the same thing as Rahner and it's OK, but Rahner is wrong on the basis of his being Rahner.
Are you stupid? Rahner says nothing about what is required, which is why his view is a distortion.
-
The idea that a man not a formal member of the Church can be saved isn't the main thrust of Vatican II.
Karl Rahner disagrees with you on that, though he does share your views on Ecclesiology and Soteriology.
-
The idea that a man not a formal member of the Church can be saved isn't the main thrust of Vatican II.
Karl Rahner disagrees with you on that, though he does share your views on Ecclesiology and Soteriology.
Rahner disagrees with the Church. He agrees with the revolution.
You are basically trying to prove you are right by showing us how Rahner is wrong.
-
Rahner disagrees with the Church. He agrees with the revolution.
So do you.
-
You are basically trying to prove you are right by showing us how Rahner is wrong.
Correct.
Rahner is wrong.
You=Rahner.
You are wrong.
Syllogism.
-
If you followed the pre -V2 manualists, who you despise, you'd reject Modernist ideas in a manner consistent with tradition.
Rahner was one of these "pre-V2 manualists". And it sounds like you despise him. I imagine, though, that Rahner, just like all the other manualists, was perfectly orthodox in 1957 but then one day they all magically became heretics on a sunny afternoon sometime in 1962. No doubt you can tell us the exact day and hour this happened.
-
You are basically trying to prove you are right by showing us how Rahner is wrong.
Correct.
Rahner is wrong.
You=Rahner.
You are wrong.
Syllogism.
I'm obviously not Rahner. You are a liar and a troll.
-
If you followed the pre -V2 manualists, who you despise, you'd reject Modernist ideas in a manner consistent with tradition.
Rahner was one of these "pre-V2 manualists". And it sounds like you despise him. I imagine, though, that Rahner, just like all the other manualists, was perfectly orthodox in 1957 but then one day they all magically became heretics on a sunny afternoon sometime in 1962. No doubt you can tell us the exact day and hour this happened.
Prove it.
-
The Teaching authority of The Theological Manuals
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals
...Obviously, if we are to examine Father Baum's claims seriously, we must first ask ourselves about the identity of the theological manuals of the turn of the twentieth century. The question with which the schema on which the council voted was that of revelation and the sources of revelation. Hence, we must suppose that, when Father Baum speaks of the offending manuals, he is referring to those which deal with fundamental dogmatic theology, and particularly with the sections De revelatione and De fontibus revelationis. It so happens that, in this field, there have been a great many very influential and well-written manuals produced during the early years of this century.
We are speaking, of course, of the manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, which were in use and were influential at and after the turn of the twentieth century. Some of these were originally written during the last years of the nineteenth century, but, in editions published subsequent to the issuance of the Lamentabili sane exitu, the Pascendi dominici gregis, and the Sacrorum antistitum, these manuals acquired the anti-Modernist emphasis, which seems so displeasing to Father Baum.
Probably the most important of these manuals were those of Louis Billot, who will most certainly be counted among the very ablest of all the theologians who labored for the Church during the early part of this century. These books, most immediately concerned with the material in the schema voted upon by the Fathers of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council, were published by the Gregorian University Press in Rome, and were re-edited many times. One of them was the De inspiratione sacrae scripturae theologica disquisitio,3 and another was the magnificent De immutabilitate traditionis contra modernam haeresim evolutionismi.4
Even more widely known than the works of Billot were those of the Sulpician Adolphe Tanquerey. Many thousands of priests were introduced to the study of sacred theology, and particularly of fundamental dogmatic theology, by courses based on Tanquerey's De Religione: De Christo Legato: De Ecclesia: De Fontibus Revelationis, the first of the three volumes of his Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomas Aquinatis accommodata.5 This particular volume had gone into its twenty-first edition in 1925. If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages," then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.
Likewise of prime importance in the early years of the twentieth century were Van Noort's two works on the subject of fundamental dogmatic theology, De vera religione6 and De ecclesia Christi.7 The influence of these two excellent works has been increased tremendously as a result of the English translation and adaptation of these works done by the Sulpician Fathers Castelot and Murphy. Another enormously and deservedly popular manual translated into English was Brunsmann's Fundamental Theology,8 made available to our scholars by the famed Arthur Preuss.
The first volume of Archbishop Zubizarreta's Theologia dogmatico-scholastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis likewise influenced many students for the priesthood in the earlier part of this century. This volume was entitled Theologia fundamentalis.9 It contained the same material found in the first volume of Tanquerey's series. Like Tanquerey, Zubizarreta wrote a shorter treatise on dogmatic theology, placing the matter covered in the four volumes of the regular edition within the content of one volume. Tanquerey's was the Brevior synopsis theologiae dogmaticae.10Zubizarreta entitled his the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae.11
In 1930 the brilliant German Jesuit Herman Dieckmann continued the tradition of the manuals of the turn of the century by publishing his De revelatione Christiana: Tractatus philosophico-historici.12 Previously he had published the two volumes of his De ecclesia: Tractatus historico-dogmatici.13 Contemporary with Dieckmann's manuals, and likewise of primary importance in the history of twentieth-century theology was the three-volume text of the Jesuit Father Emil Dorsch, Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis.14In line with the teachings of Dorsch is the doctrine contained in a highly important American manual, The Theory of Revelation,15 by the great Rochester theologian, Monsignor Joseph J. Baierl.
The manual of Tanquerey was certainly the most widely distributed among all those that appeared during the early part of this century. In the perspective of history, it would seem that two authors must share the prize for theological acuмen. One, of course, was Billot, whose text, De Ecclesia Christi: sive Continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato,16 still remains the best theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred years. The other was the French Dominican, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whose classical De Revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita17 is still basically the best manual of scholastic apologetics available to the student today.
Later than the manual of Tanquerey, but like it destined for tremendous success in the world of ecclesiastical studies, was the first volume of Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, the one entitled De vera religione: De ecclesia Christi: De fontibus revelationis.18 The first volume of Bartmann's Precis de theologie dogmatique,19 a textbook very popular a quarter of a century ago, dealt with the sources of revelation and other topics which entered into what Father Baum calls the "conflict" at the Second Vatican Council.
Tremendously influential in their own time were other manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology, which are not in common use today. Among these is the Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis 20 by the Austrian priest Anton Michelitsch. The Elementa theologiae fundamentalis,21 by the Italian Franciscan, Clemente Carmignani, is another of these texts. In this same class we must place Cardinal Vives's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 22 the first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones,23 which was entitled Theologia fundamentalis, and the first volume of MacGuiness's Commentarii theologici, a book containing the treatises De religione revelata ejusque fontibus and De ecclesia Christi.24
In the Spanish speaking world the Lecciones de apologetica 25 of Father Nicolas Marin Negueruela were outstandingly popular. There is much material on fundamental dogmatic theology in Father John Marengo's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis and in Canon Marchini's Summula theologiae dogmaticae.26 The publication of these books in the last decade of the nineteenth century marks them as genuinely "turn of the century," and they incorporate the kind of theological teaching which seems to displease Father Baum. Much more influential, however, was the treatise De theologia generali, in the first volume of Herrmann's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae 27 a work which, incidentally, earned for its author a letter of thanks from St. Pius X himself.
The first volume of Monsignor Cesare Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 28 contains a typical "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. So too does Bishop Egger's Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis.29 The same type of doctrine can also be found in the Franciscan Gabriel Casanova's Theologia fundamentalis,30 in the Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis of Father Valentine Saiz Ruiz,31 and in the Theologia generalis seu tractatus de sacrae theologiae principiis32 by Father Michael Blanch.
The first volume of nearly every set of manuals of dogmatic theology issued during the early part of this century and the last decade of the nineteenth century carried a treatise on fundamental dogma. Typical of such works were Tepe's Institutiones theologicae, Prevel's Theologiae dogmatica elementa,33 Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae,34 and Christian Pesch's Praelectiones dogmaticae.35 The texts by Pesch and Lercher have been especially influential in the training of seminarians throughout the first half of this century.
The two volumes of Hilarin Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis 36 were widely used during the past few decades. And, in the historical part of apologetics, Felder's Christ and the Critics 37 was and continues to be almost uniquely valuable. Also outstanding in this field was the two-volume work, Jesus Christ: Sa Personne, Son Message, Ses Preuves,38 by Leonce de Grandmaison.
Father Berthier, the founder of the Missionaries of the Holy Family, wrote, during the reign of Pope Leo XIII, an Abrege de theologie dogmatique et morale,39 which contains a relatively complete and typically "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. The brilliant Father Bainvel published a treatise De vera religione et apologetica,40 which had a wide and powerful influence. And among the multitudinous and now almost forgotten writings of Cardinal Lepicier were a Tractatus de sacra doctrina 41 and a Tractatus de ecclesia Christi.42
The American Jesuit Father Timothy Cotter published an eminently successful and accurate Theologia fundamentalis.43 Among the most recent of our twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology is the Theologia fundamentalis, the first volume in the text of Iragui and Abarzuza.44 The Capuchin Father Iragui is the author of this first volume.
Of primary importance among the ecclesiological manuals of our century is the two-volume Theologica de ecclesia,45 by the Jesuit Bishop Michel d'Herbigny. Other intensely influential texts in the same area are the De ecclesia Christi 46 by the Jesuit Father Timothy Zapelena and the De ecclesia Christi47 by the Franciscan Father Antonio Vellico.
Another excellent and widely used manual in this field is The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise,48 by the late Father E. Sylvester Berry of Mount Saint Mary's. And in Canada we find an extraordinarily useful pair of manuals, the Apologetica authored by the Sulpician Fathers Yelle and Fournier and the De ecclesia et de locis theologicis,49 written by Father Yelle. From Spain comes one of the very best recent traditional manuals in this field, the Theologia fundamentalis by the Jesuit Fathers Salaverri and Nicolau.50 This is the first volume of the famed Sacrae theologiae summa.
Pegues's Propaedeutica thomistica ad sacram theologiam 51 contains an unusual statement of many of the central theses of the traditional fundamental dogmatic theology. Another Dominican, Father Joachim Berthier, wrote a Tractatus de locis theologicis,52 in which he deals accurately with the matter of the sources of revelation and the Church. The Dominican tradition in the field of ecclesiology was kept up in the "turn of the century" literature by, among others, Father De Groot, who published his magnificently accurate Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis,53 by Father Gerard Paris, who followed the teaching of De Groot to a great extent in his Tractatus de ecclesia Christi,54 and by Father Reginald Schultes, whose De ecclesia catholica: Praelectiones apologeticae55 is still a classic in the field.
Forty years ago the outstanding controversy among theologians was the debate about the definability of the theological conclusion. In the discussion Schultes and Father Francis Marin-Sola were the most prominent spokesmen for the two sides. Schultes's teaching was set forth in his Introductio in historiam dogmatum.56 Marin-Sola presented his teachings in his L'Evolution homogene du dogme catholique.57 Both authors, however, were "penetrated" by what Father Baum has called "anti-modernist emphasis." And the material in these books definitely influenced the content of subsequent manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology.
There has been considerable writing in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, in line with the "turn of the century" tradition of Catholic and anti-Modernist theology, among English-speaking priests. Immensely popular some years ago was Devivier's Christian Apologetics,58 a translation edited and arranged by Bishop Messmer, one of the first faculty members at The Catholic University of America. In line with the teachings of Father Garrigou-Lagrange were Father Walshe's The Principles of Catholic Apologetics 59 and my own We Stand With Christ.60
The Jesuit Father John T. Langan wrote a fine Apologetica,61 which has been too little used by his fellow Americans. Another Jesuit, Father Joseph de Guibert, published a De ecclesia,62 which is recognized as one of the finest texts in this field produced during the course of our century.
During the past twenty years we have had many more texts which have kept up the teachings and the spirit of the manuals of the turn of the century, and which have certainly continued their anti-Modernist emphasis. Among these we may mention in passing the Theologia fundamentalis of the Jesuit Father Francis X. Calcagno,63 the Theologia fundamentalis64 of Archbishop Parente, the present Assessor of the Holy Office, and the Theologia fundamentalis65 of the Franciscan Father Maurus Heinrichs, as well as the magnificent treatise De revelatione christiana66 by Father Sebastian Tromp. There are also the very complete and accurate Theologia fundamentalis 67of the Jesuit Father Joseph Mors, the first volume of Conrad Baisi's Elementa theologiae scholasticae,68 and the first volume of the Theologiae dogmaticae theses 69of Canon Joseph Lahitton.
The "turn of the century" spirit, and the anti-Modernist emphasis so deplored by Father Baum are also quite manifest in the articles published in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique and the Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique.
4 The Gregorian University also brought out a fourth edition of this brilliantly anti-Modernist work in 1929, shortly after Billot had resigned from the College of Cardinals.
5 This set was published by Desclee and Co., of Paris, Tournai, and Rome. Later editions of these manuals were prepared by the Sulpician Father J. B. Bord.
6 The third edition of this work was prepared by Father E. P. Rengs, and was published at Amsterdam by C. L. Van Langenhuijsen in 1917.
7 Van Langenhuijsen published the third edition of this work in 1913. The English translations were published by the Newman Press in 1955 and 1957.
8 A Handbook of Fundamental Theology, by The Rev. John Brunsmann, S.V.D. Freely adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss. Four Volumes. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932.
9 The firm of Elexpuru in Bilbao, Spain, published a third edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in 1937.
10 Desclee published a seventh edition of this work, produced with the co-operation of J. B. Bord, in 1931.
11 A second edition of the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae was published by Elexpuru in 1947.
12 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1930.
13 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925.
14 This work was published by Rauch in Innsbruck, Austria. A second and third edition of the first volume appeared in 1930, a second edition of the second volume in 1928, and a second edition of the third volume in 1927.
15 This book was published by The Seminary Press, in Rochester, N. Y. The first volume appeared in 1927, and the second in 1933.
16 A fifth edition of the first volume of this work was published by the Gregorian University in Rome in 1927. A third edition of the much smaller, but still immensely important second volume appeared in 1929. The De ecclesia is generally recognized to be the finest of all the theological writings of Cardinal Billot. It must not be forgotten that the late Pope Pius XII, in an address to the students of the Gregorian, named Billot as a theologian who should be a model for all of the teachers of sacred doctrine in our time.
17 The publishing house of Ferrari in Rome published a third edition of the complete De revelatione (in two volumes), in 1929 and 1931. The original edition appeared in two volumes and the preface is dated on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1917. Afterwards there was a one-volume edition, which was not successful. Ferrari published a fourth edition of the two-volume work in 1945.
18 This first volume was published in Paris by Berche et Pagis in 1929.
19 The translation of this work into French was made by Father Marcel Gautier. A second edition of the first volume, translated from the eighth edition of the German original, was published in Mulhouse, France, by Les Editions Salvator in 1935.
20 A third edition of this book was published by the firm of Styria at Graz and Vienna in 1925.
21 Carmigiani's Elementa theologiae fundameiitalis was published in Florence by the Libreria Editrice Fiorentina in 1911.
22 The firm of Pustet published a fourth edition of this work in 1903.
23 The first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones, the Theologia fundamentalis, was published by J. J. Romen and Sons in Roermond, in Holland, in 1910.
24 The third edition of the first volume was brought out in Paris by Lethielleux and in Dublin by Gill in 1930.
25 The Libreria Internacional, in San Sebastian, Spain, brought out a fifth edition of this two-volume work in 1939.
26 The Salesian Press in Turin published a third edition of Marengo's two-volume work in 1894. Marchini's Summula was published at Vigevano in 1898.
27 The publisher Emmanuel Vitte brought out a seventh edition of Herrmann's Institutiones in Lyons and Paris in 1937.
28 The fourth edition of Monsignor Manzoni's first volume was published in Turin in 1928 by Lege Italiana Cattolica Editrice.
29 The publisher Weger of Brescia brought out the sixth edition of Bishop Egger's work in 1932.
30 This work was published in Rome by the Typographia Sallustiani in 1899.
31 The Press and the Bookshop of the Centro Catolico published this work in Burgos, Spain, in 1906.
32 Father Blanch's book was published by the Montserrat Press of Barcelona in 1901.
33 Tepe's book was published by Lethielleux in Paris in 1894. In 1912 the same publisher brought out a third edition of Prevel's first volume. It was edited by Father Miquel, SS.CC.
34 The second edition of Lercher's first volume appeared in 1934, published at Innsbruck by Rauch. Father Schlagenhaufen, S.J., edited a very useful fifth edition of this volume, which was published by Herder in Barcelona in 1951.
35 Herder, in Freiburg-im-Breisgau brought out a sixth and seventh edition of this work in 1924.
36 A second edition of the two volumes of Felder's Apologetica was published in Paderborn in 1923 by Schoeningh.
37 The English translation was made by the famous John L. Stoddard and was published in London in 1924 by Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, Ltd.
38 The brilliant French original, one of the most powerful works in the field of Catholic apologetics, was published by Beauchesne in Paris. A seventeenth edition appeared in 1931. One of the sad phenomena in English Catholic letters was the appearance, two years ago, of a small and relatively unimportant section of this work set forth as a complete book. This radically bowdlerized edition is published as Jesus Christ, by Leonce de Grandmaison, S.J., with a preface by Jean Danielou, S.J., and has been brought out by Sheed and Ward in New York.
39 A fifth edition was published by Vitte at Lyons and Paris in 1928.
40 Beauchesne of Paris published this work in 1914.
41 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1927. Basically this work is a commentary on the first question in the Pars Prima of the Summa theologica. It takes in, however, a good deal of anti-Modernist teaching.
42 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1935.
43 The book was published by Weston College, in Weston, Massachusetts, in 1940.
44 The Theologia fundamentalis of Father Serapius de Iragui, O.F.M. Cap., was published by the Ediciones Studium in Madrid in 1959.
45 Beauchesne published third editions of the two volumes in 1927 and 1928 in Paris. D'Herbigny's manual is outstanding for its use of oriental Christian theological literature.
46 The fourth edition of the first volume of this fine work was published in Rome by the Gregorian University in 1946. The first public edition of the second volume did not appear until 1954. Previous editions, like that of 1940, were "ad usum auditorum."
47 Rome: Arnodo, 1940. Vellico's text is extraordinarily valuable.
48 Herder of St. Louis published a second edition of this book in 1927.
49 Both of these highly useful volumes were published by the Grand Seminary, in Montreal, in 1945.
50 The Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos published a fifth edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in Madrid in 1955.
51 This was published by the Libreria del S. Cuore in Turin in 1931.
52 A second edition of this was published by Marietti in Turin in 1900.
53 The publishing house of Manz in Ratisbon brought out a second edition of this in 1892.
54 The full title of this work is Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis tractatus de ecclesia Christi ad usum studentium theologie fundamentalis. Marietti published it in Turin in 1929.
55 A later edition of this work, edited by Father Edmund Prantner, O.P., was published in Paris by Lethielleux in 1930.
56 Lethielleux also published this work, which appeared in 1922.
57 A second edition of this two-volume work was published in Fribourg in Switzerland in 1924 by the Imprimerie et Librairie de l'Oeuvre de Saint Paul.
58 This translation was published in 1903 by Benziger Brothers of New York.
59 Longmans, Green and Company published this in 1919.
60 Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1942.
61 Chicago: The Loyola University Press, 1921.
62 A second edition of this work "in auditorum usu," was published in Rome by the Gregorian University Press in 1928.
63 Naples: D'Auria, 1948.
64 Turin: Marietti, 1946.
65 The Studium Biblicuм Franciscanum of Tokyo bought out a second edition of this work in 1958.
66 Fifth edition, Rome: The Gregorian University Press, 1945.
67 This is a two-volume text, the second edition of which was published in Buenos Aires by the Editorial Guadalupe in 1954 and 1955.
68 Milan: Editrice Ancora, 1948.
-
The above is just further proof that you are a troll and a liar, Ladi.
-
The above is just further proof that you are a troll and a liar, Ladi.
"The above" is just spam, a list of some influential theological manuals, which you interjected to distract from the most recent subject on this thread, the fact that you are in league with Karl Rahner and other enemies of the Faith.
You remind me of those US Senators who filibuster by reading from a phone book.
-
Why not just tell it like it is SJB:
The Teaching authority of The Theological Manuals
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals
The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals includes treating all most some ex cathedra declarations as if they are parables which narrate a story, so that although infallibly declared, infallible decrees do not mean what they say - God can only safeguard so much from the possibility of error - the rest He leaves up to theologians to clarify. As such, only authorized theologians are authorized to interpret the infallible decrees even when it takes 1000s of pages to interpret a single infallible sentence.
This doctrine rings so true that if we must argue away all the other doctrines
of the Faith, and deny the reality of the very cosmos, we will hold to
this one dogma that infallible decrees are not to be understood as once declared - oh no, on the contrary, they are to be interpreted under the pretext and in the name of a better and more profound understanding.
In this way, when the Theological Manuals twist infallible decrees into a meaningless formula, those poor people who agree with the errors of the theological manuals have strength in numbers against that which was once declared, ex cathedra!
See SJB, you didn't need another 20th century NO theologian to rave on and on and on - a few simple truths written clearly gets right to the point and says it all.
-
The idea that a man not a formal member of the Church can be saved isn't the main thrust of Vatican II.
It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.
-
Pius XII even said that Baptism is the equivalent of Holy Orders in that regard. They are both character Sacraments.
Ladislaus, I know what teaching of Pius XII you are referring to, but no he did not say any such thing. This is what Pius XII actually believed and always taught,
the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open
The reason baptism and penance are comparable is because they were both instituted for the remission of sins. Trent uses the same word voto in describing the possibility that these can be had in desire (as it does also for the Eucharist), while it does not teach that of any of the other four sacraments. Even if you were to deny this, as I know you do, there's more:
If you admit that the sacrament of penance is necessary in fact or in desire, as your posts to Ambrose indicate that you do, then you must admit that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire, because Trent expressly says the necessity is the same in both cases.
Trent says, “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”
The Dimonds concede this,
They argue that people who have fallen into mortal sin can be justified and saved without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition, and therefore people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since Trent says that the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance for those in mortal sin is the same as the necessity of Baptism
and in vain do they try to answer it.
What does the Baptismal character do?
The baptismal character does ordinarily dispose our soul to be justified, and creates the potentiality for it, agreed. Yet it is not so intrinsically connected with it that the one cannot be conferred without the other.
If it were really the case, the saints of the OT would never have been able to be justified, because they died without the character. They would have died in actual sin, then, and been damned.
In fact, the case of the OT just PROVES that something besides supernatural faith and charity are required for entry into heaven. St. Joseph, despite his sanctity, could not enter into heaven because SOMETHING was missing. What was that something? It was this supernatural character.
This is not at all the traditional position - St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Innocent III (all of whom the Dimonds know and teach to be "clearly wrong" on this subject) tell us that original sin was remitted and sanctifying grace conferred to the OT just by faith that works through charity, and the readiness to obey the ordinances of God such as circuмcision.
This is a topic that probably deserves another thread, if you are ready to discuss it carefully and in more depth, I'll start one.
Briefly, the repropate died without grace, and in sin, and so were lost, the just died in grace, and so were saved in anticipation of the merits of Christ, but the application of those merits as to their final effects would have to wait until Redemption was an accomplished fact. The defect as to the individual person had to be healed before death, but the wound common to the whole of human nature could only be healed by someone who was above it, that is by Jesus, and also Mary, at the Cross. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Innocent III and several others.
-
That souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood cannot be called into question without objective mortal sin.
The opening thread says specifically that there are no discussions permitted here about BOD and BOB of the catechumen. So, to begin with, 80% of your posting is smokescreen, just like I said in the opening post, that you BODers always do .
The real question should be how explicit must the faith of those who are saved by baptism of desire be. This is the only question the Doctors regarded as open after the medieval pronouncements of the Magisterium and discussed among themselves in the schools and in their writings.
This is part is related to the subject, but it says nothing.
So your entire posting adds up a no answer smokescreen. Just what this thread said you BODers always do.
Practically all the believers in EENS as it is written, have stated repeatedly that there is no point in discussing the innocuous theories of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet for BODers like LOT, Ambrose and all others, 99% of what they post is about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood.
And they complain about too many BOD threads? We've told them continuously and ad-nauseum that we are not discussing BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and yet they continue to post only about BOD & BOB of the catechumen. What's with that?
If one looks at what is actually written by BODers here on CI, and also at all the so-called "traditionalist" BODers websites and books, 99.99% of the evidence they post is about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, meanwhile, they don't even believe that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire for martyrdom, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation. Those books and websites all end up teaching something which is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint or council. (the teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity). Yet they NEVER address the fact that it is opposed to every source (Father, Doctor, Saint, Council) that they sight in defense of BOD & BOB of the catechumen.
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
-
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
-
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
You do not even believe in explicit Baptism of Desire. When you and your comrades recant your denial of explicit Baptism of Desire, then we can talk about implicit Baptism of Desire.
-
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ
DOGMA:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)
BODers deny Creeds
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Heh. Bowler, you simply dance around what I said. Here, reply to this.
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism ...Therefore, proving that catechumens and martyrs can be saved ... is to prove their entire soteriology wrong. And therefore it is necessary to do that.
-
Heh. Bowler, you simply dance around what I said. Here, reply to this.
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism ...Therefore, proving that catechumens and martyrs can be saved ... is to prove their entire soteriology wrong. And therefore it is necessary to do that.
That's all he ever does. He and the others ignore the evidence that proves them wrong and play theologian.
-
There is nothing new in his explanations, only further precision.
Yes, that's always the line, that it's refinement of the dogma. Yet somehow the dogma has gotten "refined" to the point that most people (like yourself) calls us heretical for not believing the OPPOSITE of EENS.
EENS has been "precisioned" into the OPPOSITE OF EENS.
Only in the minds of the Dimond and Feeney followers. The dogma needed further explanation, as it left open an area that needed more precision. Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him gave further explanations of this dogma. You are not free to disagree with these explanations.
-
That's all he ever does. He and the others ignore the evidence that proves them wrong and play theologian.
Agreed, Ambrose. The root of their error is that they do not learn from teachers approved by the Church. Really, the fact that the heretical Peter Abelard was opposed on this point by Sts. Bernard and Bonaventure who happen to be Doctors of the Church should make this issue a no-brainer for Catholics. And that apart from the pronouncements of Innocent II and III which settled the matter. Learn from the Doctors of the Church, or side with a known heretic, who held heretical opinions even (ironically enough, given Bowler's current prevarications above) about the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Really difficult choice, isn't it?
-
Heh. Bowler, you simply dance around what I said. Here, reply to this.
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism ...Therefore, proving that catechumens and martyrs can be saved ... is to prove their entire soteriology wrong. And therefore it is necessary to do that.
End run, has nothing to do with the thread. I expected more of you, however, it is not to be. It's been quite a while since I've had a straight answer from you. This thread is very clear what it's about:
You deny clear dogma of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas, and you have not a Father, Doctor, saint or council to substantiate your belief in salvation without explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
-
has nothing to do with the thread
Bowler, if you want to talk, you need to calm down a bit.
The Dimonds and others mistakenly claim and misinterpret various texts and canons to mean that catechumens and martyrs cannot be saved. But since catechumens and martyrs can be saved can be independently proved, it shows that their absurd reading of those canons (beside being a historical novelty they can cite no one before them in favor of) is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to demonstrate this.
I think that you don't like that fact. As I've told you, the question is not about baptism of desire but rather about explicit and implicit faith in Christ.
-
Heh. Bowler, you simply dance around what I said. Here, reply to this.
The Dimonds for one have a heterodox soteriology that claims justification is intrinsically impossible without the character of baptism ...Therefore, proving that catechumens and martyrs can be saved ... is to prove their entire soteriology wrong. And therefore it is necessary to do that.
Non sequitur, on many counts.
Dimonds rarely mention Baptismal character. That's important for me, however.
Secondly, the allowance for a BoD of catechumens does NOT prove that your anti-EENS soteriology isn't heretical.
You guys absolutely persist in your diabolical heretical conflation of BoD with your FoD. In fact, you desperately CLING to this conflation because without it you have absolutely ZERO to stand on.
We keep calling you out on the fact that you keep pasting in sources that believe in BoD for catechumens and claim thereby that non-Catholics can be saved. That does not follow. You pretend, however, that they're one and the same.
I am beginning to agree with the Dimonds that you guys are in fact bad willed.
-
Dimonds rarely mention Baptismal character. That's important for me, however.
They mention it quite often, actually. I read a lot of their material at one point in time.
the allowance for a BoD of catechumens does NOT prove that your anti-EENS soteriology isn't heretical
The correct question to ask, once we've established that souls are saved by baptism of desire is - How explicit must the faith of those who are so saved be? If you wish to condemn my position on that, you need to condemn the Doctors too, because it is identical to theirs. I have no position of my own, because I can "teach" nothing. I merely repeat what I have learned.
Not to mention Pius XII, since he speaks of an act of love of God as causing the baptismal effect.
I am beginning to agree with the Dimonds that you guys are in fact bad willed.
For your sake, I hope not. Once you go down that path, there's scarcely a chance of coming back. I've known it to happen before.
Don't throw your life away by becoming a proponent of dogmatic Feeneyism, as they have. Go back to the books, Ladislaus. Learn your faith from those approved to teach. Teach nothing you have not been taught yourself, repeat nothing you have not personally learned from those authorized and appointed to teach you. When you think you have "discovered" something in the reading of a text or a canon, make sure it is not a novelty. Study the works of those who have read and commented on these canons for hundreds of years before you, especially if they are known for their orthodoxy and sanctity.
I implore you for your own sake, and speak no differently to you than I would to my own brother. The Dimonds know well how to confuse souls, and it requires a lot of reading to know and show why and where they're wrong. This is hardly the task for individual souls. The Church as a loving Mother would simply censure such works, ordinarily, that Her children may not read them. Only very trained theologians, usually together, would set about answering them.
-
has nothing to do with the thread
Bowler, if you want to talk, you need to calm down a bit.
The Dimonds and others mistakenly claim and misinterpret various texts and canons to mean that catechumens and martyrs cannot be saved. But since catechumens and martyrs can be saved can be independently proved, it shows that their absurd reading of those canons (beside being a historical novelty they can cite no one before them in favor of) is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to demonstrate this.
I think that you don't like that fact. As I've told you, the question is not about baptism of desire but rather about explicit and implicit faith in Christ.
If you would have posted my entire comment you would have answered your own question, this is the part you left out:
You deny clear dogma of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas, and you have not a Father, Doctor, saint or council to substantiate your belief in salvation without explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Unless the Dimond's have something to do with your denying clear dogma,the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas ..... , your comment has nothing to do with your denial. You are in denial, you are rejecting, denying clear dogma, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas. The Dimond's are not to blame for your denials, rejections.
-
The above is just further proof that you are a troll and a liar, Ladi.
"The above" is just spam, a list of some influential theological manuals, which you interjected to distract from the most recent subject on this thread, the fact that you are in league with Karl Rahner and other enemies of the Faith.
You remind me of those US Senators who filibuster by reading from a phone book.
You said Rahner was a manualist. He isn't, and you are just a troll. You side with Fr. Gregory Baum, in disregarding the manualists of the 20th century.
-
You said Rahner was a manualist. He isn't, and you are just a troll. You side with Fr. Gregory Baum, in disregarding the manualists of the 20th century.
Depends on how you define "manual".
Before you were saying we owed the assent of faith to pre V2 "theologians". When I point out that Rahner was a pre V2 theologian, now you change this assent of faith to "the manualists"? Show me citations where out adherence to theologians is limited to the magical "manualists". Oh, wait, that's pretty much a made up term to describe a certain type of theological output.
-
Bowler, your last post is a laugh and a half. My position is identical with that of St. Thomas and while in the past, you have acknowledged this and more, for some reason of late, you seem inclined to do otherwise.
Need I remind you of this?
Thank you for your correction, Nishant. I was ignorant of the relevant details of the dispute and was quite sad ... I am very happy that you have now informed me of the Church's mind on the matter.
You yourself said to me that in the thread where PereJoseph posted the above, and God bless him for having the mind of the Church, you spent 50 odd pages in vain trying to argue in favor of condeming baptism of desire.
I made one post on explicit faith in Christ, showing how it was not what I believe only but the majority consensus among theologians even after the Holy Office Letter, and PereJoseph posted the above. If I remember correctly, both Ambrose and SJB also told you then that they believe explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation. But all this you conveniently forget. As I say, if you make it about explicit faith, you have every authority on your side, and we would even agree with you. You have only yourself to blame by still confusing the issue, and trying in vain to condemn baptism of desire.
-
You said Rahner was a manualist. He isn't, and you are just a troll. You side with Fr. Gregory Baum, in disregarding the manualists of the 20th century.
Depends on how you define "manual".
Before you were saying we owed the assent of faith to pre V2 "theologians". When I point out that Rahner was a pre V2 theologian, now you change this assent of faith to "the manualists"? Show me citations where out adherence to theologians is limited to the magical "manualists". Oh, wait, that's pretty much a made up term to describe a certain type of theological output.
I didn't say "assent of faith" but you reject that a man learn from approved teachers. Was Rahner an author of a theological manual? The very thing we are speaking about here? Yes or no.
-
Manuals vs. theology in general is a false and irrelevant distinction. You are the one who keeps talking about manuals.
-
My position is identical with that of St. Thomas and while in the past, you have acknowledged this and more....
The past was like for 5 minutes and then you went back to defending salvation without belief in the Trinity, just like all the other BODers here.
It's really very simple. I've asked the question ad-nauseum and not a one of you BODers has responded with a simple answer:
Bowler, you cannot quote even one single source who has ever even noticed the "false teaching" that has been in all catechisms and taught by all the quoted theologians and manualists.
We are not discussing here baptism of desire or Blood of the catechumen, so I must assume that what you are defending is Heroin BOD, "salvation by no desire to be a Catholic or belief in Christ" (what is called salvation by implicit faith in Christ, implicit because the person believes in a god that rewards). It's obvious that that is what you are doing in continuing to come onto these threads about salvation by implicit faith in Christ.
The Catholic that is open to the remote possibility of BOD for catechumens only - as fallible Church teaching - would not waste any time defending it. It's obvious that the BODers here are defending Heroin BOD.
It's really quite simple, as I've always pointed out to all you BODers countless times:
The BODers, if they were honest and sincere, would say that they believe in a strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics. These are two innocuous theories that have the support of St. Thomas of Aquinas and other Saints that came after them.
Just SAY that you limit your belief to the strict BOD of the catechumen, and Baptism of Blood of the Martyr, of those people who explicitly desire to be Catholics.
It's always been that simple, yet none of you BODers "put your money where your mouth is".
I only met one BODer in my 20 years that limited his belief to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas AND that condemned the teaching that someone could be saved without explicit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarantion and the Trinity.
To defend in any way or to "tolerate" the teaching that one can be saved without explicit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is too tolerate heresy (denial of dogma of Florence, and the infallible unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and St. Thomas Aquinas). You might as well say you don't condemn anyone or anything about the conciliar church.
SIGN BELOW Nishant, Ambrose, LOT, and others:
_______________________________________
-
Manuals vs. theology in general is a false and irrelevant distinction. You are the one who keeps talking about manuals.
No it isnt.
Father Baum’s Position
Now it must be noted that there is no complete agreement among the works we have mentioned (and we have mentioned only a small part of the literature which might be called twentieth century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology), with reference to theological opinions. Certainly there are theses in the book by Christian Pesch, which are impugned in the work of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. And not everything that is taught by Tanquerey is approved in the manuals of Louis Billot.
Yet, if we examine the matter closely, the opposition of Father Baum is directed, not towards any individual opinion or group of opinions within the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, but against the common teaching of all these texts. It is Father Baum's contention that one of the contending groups at the Second Vatican Council is seeking "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the antimodernist emphasis which penetrated them." If his words have any meaning at all, he must be convinced that what is the common teaching of all these manuals of the turn of the century, and the common teaching of the manuals which followed them throughout the course of the twentieth century, is definitely not Catholic wisdom, and that this teaching must be abandoned if the life of the Church is to be renewed, and if we are to return to what he calls "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages."
Now it is quite obvious that the common teaching of the manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology since the turn of the twentieth century has been the doctrine, which has been taught to the candidates for the priesthood within the Catholic Church, at least up until the past few months. We are dealing with books, which have been employed in teaching in seminaries and universities. If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century.
It must be noted that we are speaking of the common teaching of these texts or manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. Father Baum charges that one of the two conflicting groups at the Second Vatican Council was trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Of course this is the language of Madison Avenue rather than of the university lecture hall. It is calculated to make his readers imagine that many of the Fathers of the council were attempting to give to the teaching of the manuals in fundamental dogmatic theology a status, which that teaching had not previously enjoyed.
What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.
You are Fr. Baum, Ladi. That's why you, like the liberals, quote Church Fathers and selective dogmatic decrees and then explain to others what YOU think they mean.
-
you went back to defending salvation without belief in the Trinity
Such statements lack intellectual honesty. If I wanted to do this, then why did I intervene in your discussion with PereJoseph? Not only did I argue in favor of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, but I did this where you either could not or would not.
I am a firm Thomist on many points, but I cannot call other positions (for e.g. Molinism, if you know what that is, which is unlikely) heretical so long as the Church permits them. I argue in favor of the position I hold, and maintain that it is true, but no more. This is exactly what all Thomists do and recommend, including great ones whom the Church has signally honored, like John of St. Thomas.
St. Thomas makes numerous statements on implicit desire for baptism, "Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit." In fact, the desire in that passage is certainly implicit, because St. Peter had not yet proclaimed baptism, but only faith in Jesus Christ.
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
Prove to me your interpretation of Florence is not a novelty, i.e. show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do. If Florence really taught it, you would be easily able to do this. The reason you cannot do this is because Florence never taught such a thing, nor considered the question at all.
You are just like the schismatical Jansenists and others who, on the doctrine of limbo, tried to condemn the scholastic Doctors based on a misreading of some ancient condemnations, pretending it was dogma that infants suffer hellfire. They also claimed the authority of some of the Fathers, pretending that this allowed them to disregard Papal teaching. These had to be specifically condemned, again.
-
As a Catholic, you are free to adhere to the Thomist or Molinist position since none of them actually contradict revealed, defined dogmas, so in a sense, both are satisfactory. That is why the Church allows it. However, the belief that implicit Faith suffices for salvation clearly contradicts defined divine dogmas regarding Salvation and the necessity of Baptism. It's not the same. You cite st. Thomas talking in several occasions about implicit desire, but one thing is the necessity of desire (for being Catholic) as a predisposition for Baptism in adults (as stated in Trent) and another very different is the efficacy of that "desire" for the consummation of the Sacrament itself. Baptism is the seal of Justification.
-
As a Catholic, you are free to adhere to the Thomist or Molinist position since none of them actually contradict revealed, defined dogmas, so in a sense, both are satisfactory. That is why the Church allows it.
You're right for the most part.
The simple fact that the Church allows both positions to be taught by Her theologians, discussed in Her schools, inculcated in manuals, imbibed by seminarians, and this for several centuries now shows that it is a question on which Catholics, as you say, are free to adhere to either.
But the same is true for explicit and implicit faith. Catholics are allowed to choose either, though only one is true, and those who believe in explicit faith are allowed and even obliged to defend it. But not by calling implicit faith heretical.
If you did, then you would yourself objectively speaking be guilty of schism, just like you would if you called Molinism heresy. If someone said Molinism or implicit faith is heretical, that person would himself be guilty, objectively, of schism.
divine dogmas regarding Salvation and the necessity of Baptism
Here's another example. Some schismatics claimed the early Church had already dogmatically condemned limbo, and consigned infants to hellfire, based on a misreading of ancient canons. Would you not say the very fact that the medieval Doctors regarded the question as open, and later Magisterial pronouncements, disproves such a claim?
Likewise, the fact that all Saints and Doctors, even after Florence and Trent, treat the question of explicit and implicit faith as open, let alone the Magisterial pronouncements of Pius IX and Pius XII, disproves your claim.
-
Prove to me your interpretation of Florence is not a novelty, i.e. show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do. If Florence really taught it, you would be easily able to do this. The reason you cannot do this is because Florence never taught such a thing, nor considered the question at all.
This is how you determine truth "show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do"? That's just an end run. The dogma is clearest dogma on EENS that there is, and yet you deny it. If the Fathers are not unanimous (considered infallible) in teaching the same as Florence, then they are unanimous in nothing. The Council of Florence is repeating what was put into the Athanasian Creed 1000 years before. You can't produce one Father, Doctor, or Saint that taught otherwise. And yet you ask me to show you others who thought the way I do? The entire Church proclaimed it! What more proof can I give you. If someone were sent back from the dead to proclaim it to you you would not believe it.
If one does not condemn the teaching that one can be saved without explcit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, if one does not condemn them, then they are part of the problem, and have not a leg to stand on when the modernist walk all over tradition.
-
To steal a quote from Fr. Wathen and adapting it to explain the reality our situation today (my addition in blue):
This doctrine (that for salvation one must, at the very least, explicitly desire to be baptized or martyred, or explicitly desire to be a Catholic, and explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity) is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
Without that doctrine, it is 1959 all over again for traditionalist, like the movie "Groundhog Day", they will keep repeating the loss of the faith by their children and young priests, and a new and smaller revival of traditionalism after all the craziness starts to show. We are at that point now with the SSPX, it's 1959 all over again. If they can teach their seminarians that all the clear dogmas on EENS and Baptism do not mean what they say, then accepting ambiguous Vatican II "in light of tradition" is a piece of cake for those young priests.
-
To steal a quote from Fr. Wathen and adapting it to explain the reality our situation today (my addition in blue):
This doctrine (that for salvation one must, at the very least, explicitly desire to be baptized or martyred, or explicitly desire to be a Catholic, and explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity) is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.
Without that doctrine, it is 1959 all over again for traditionalist, like the movie "Groundhog Day", they will keep repeating the loss of the faith by their children and young priests, and a new and smaller revival of traditionalism after all the craziness starts to show. We are at that point now with the SSPX, it's 1959 all over again. If they can teach their seminarians that all the clear dogmas on EENS and Baptism do not mean what they say, then accepting ambiguous Vatican II "in light of tradition" is a piece of cake for those young priests.
The same question goes for you as for Ladislaus. Will you admit that you have read the writings of the Dimonds? (I also include watching their videos.)
-
Don't worry, bowler, he just wants to tell you that you must shun the works of heretics.
-
Don't worry, bowler, he just wants to tell you that you must shun the works of heretics.
And you obviously think it is ok to read and learn from heretics. You are infected. If you want the cure you must flee from heresy and heretics.
-
Don't worry, bowler, he just wants to tell you that you must shun the works of heretics.
And you obviously think it is ok to read and learn from heretics. You are infected. If you want the cure you must flee from heresy and heretics.
You are the heretic, Ambrose. There's nothing heretical in the works of the Dimonds. They simply uphold the dogma EENS. They err in elevating belief in BoD for catechumens to "heresy". But that's a relatively minor error compared to your fundamental rejection of EENS.
-
Don't worry, bowler, he just wants to tell you that you must shun the works of heretics.
And you obviously think it is ok to read and learn from heretics. You are infected. If you want the cure you must flee from heresy and heretics.
You are the heretic, Ambrose. There's nothing heretical in the works of the Dimonds. They simply uphold the dogma EENS. They err in elevating belief in BoD for catechumens to "heresy". But that's a relatively minor error compared to your fundamental rejection of EENS.
They are heretics, and you whether you will admit it or not have been influenced by them.
Let me ask you, did you ever doubt the teaching of the Church before you heard it or read it from a Feeneyite or Dimond publication?
When was the first time in your life that you doubted the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and what caused you to doubt it?
-
Let me ask you, did you ever doubt the teaching of the Church before you heard it or read it from a Feeneyite or Dimond publication?
Are you stupid, Ambrose? Or just diabolically dishonest? I spent several paragraphs explaining to you how I arrived at the true understanding of Catholic teaching. It's as if you don't understand basic English. I had not so much as even heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimonds before arriving at my conclusions.
-
Let me ask you, did you ever doubt the teaching of the Church before you heard it or read it from a Feeneyite or Dimond publication?
Are you stupid, Ambrose? Or just diabolically dishonest? I spent several paragraphs explaining to you how I arrived at the true understanding of Catholic teaching. It's as if you don't understand basic English. I had not so much as even heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimonds before arriving at my conclusions.
So you just started spontaneously doubting doctrines of the Church? That is very odd.
Luther did the same thing.
-
Both Father Feeney and I appear to have had a similar journey towards the truth.
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
I obviously knew something was wrong with Vatican II. At some point, however, I recognized that I rejected Vatican II for no real doctrinal reason, just because I associated it with the heterodoxy of the local presider. I realized that I needed to be honest. So I studied Vatican II to try understanding what the real errors were. After reading everything in Vatican II I realized that it all had to do with salvation outside the Church, with ecclesiology and soteriology. So I began studying the question of EENS.
As with Father Feeney, I knew that SOMEthing was wrong with Vatican II and the New Church, but I felt that to be honest I had to be able to articulate exactly what that was. Otherwise, I would be schismatic for being a Traditional Catholic.
At one point I believed in BoD, but then I traced the undermining of EENS back to the BoD. BoD was used by the enemies of the Church to undermine EENS. I went back and forth on BoD for catechumens, thinking at first that it had been taught by Trent. Then I realized that this was just another lie in the BoD fraud that was used to undermine the Church.
This was all before I knew who Father Feeney was or before I had ever even heard of the Dimonds.
-
So you just started spontaneously doubting doctrines of the Church? That is very odd.
Luther did the same thing.
I never doubted the doctrines of the Church. And you just started spontaneously doubting the teachings of Vatican II, hypocrite?
-
Both Father Feeney and I appear to have had a similar journey towards the truth.
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
I obviously knew something was wrong with Vatican II. At some point, however, I recognized that I rejected Vatican II for no real doctrinal reason, just because I associated it with the heterodoxy of the local presider. I realized that I needed to be honest. So I studied Vatican II to try understanding what the real errors were. After reading everything in Vatican II I realized that it all had to do with salvation outside the Church, with ecclesiology and soteriology. So I began studying the question of EENS.
As with Father Feeney, I knew that SOMEthing was wrong with Vatican II and the New Church, but I felt that to be honest I had to be able to articulate exactly what that was. Otherwise, I would be schismatic for being a Traditional Catholic.
At one point I believed in BoD, but then I traced the undermining of EENS back to the BoD. BoD was used by the enemies of the Church to undermine EENS. I went back and forth on BoD for catechumens, thinking at first that it had been taught by Trent. Then I realized that this was just another lie in the BoD fraud that was used to undermine the Church.
This was all before I knew who Father Feeney was or before I had ever even heard of the Dimonds.
God bless you and keep you, Ladislaus.
Now if only more priests and those in authority also realized this fact and started preaching it, it would make the whole difference in the world. In truth, the denial of EESN is the root of the Crisis of Faith and is not going away until there is a solemn condemnation of BOD/Invincible Ignorance/ Universal Salvation.
-
I was just listening to the Bp. Donald Sanborn (sedevacantes) vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi Ph.D. debate on the subject of "The teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the Post-Conciliar Church about the Nature of the Catholic Church is HERETICAL".
http://www.novusordowatch.org/v2debate.htm
At the 27:20 minute mark Dr. Fastigi starts to nail Bp. Sanborn right on his Achilles heel, his belief that someone can be saved by implicit faith, the belief that anyone can be saved who has no explicit belief in Christ or the Trinity, (nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, or baptized or martyred). Dr. Fastigi points out to Bp. Sanborn that what he complains about Vatican II, is the same as he believes.
I will listen to the rest now. Like I said, no "traditionalist" BODer has a leg to stand on with regard to Vatican II's declarations. Fastigi brings home the point in his every defense of Vatican II. He quotes Pope Pius XII Ok-ing "ecuмenism", and a pope quote saying the god of the Mohamedans is the same God as our God, and a theologian here and there from "the approved times". Sound familiar? Same technique the BODers employ all the time.
There's nothing that Sanborn can say. In all of it, NOT ONE dogmatic decree is sighted.
-
Yes, Dr. Fastiggi DESTROYED Bishop Sanborn in that debate for the reasons you cited.
-
Again the line of attack (on the various threads) has returned to BoD / BoB for catechumens. In addition to ad hominem attacks on Father Feeney and the Dimonds.
These EENS-denying heretics refuse to actually address their heresy, which is Faith of Desire.
-
See, if you BoDers (or, rather, FoDers) were actually honest, you'd look at Church teaching and realize that there's no evidence in the BoD citations for Faith of Desire, and you would realize that Faith of Desire leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology / soteriology. If you were honest, you would either reject your heretical Faith of Desire or renounce Traditional Catholicism / Sedevacantism (most of you are sedevacantists).
But the fact that you do not either
1) reject Faith of Desire
OR
2) renounce Traditional Catholicism
means that you are COMPLETELY DISHONEST. If you sat down with a heart open to the Holy Spirit and pondered this question, you couldn't just live in this contradiction.
-
So you just started spontaneously doubting doctrines of the Church? That is very odd.
Luther did the same thing.
I never doubted the doctrines of the Church. And you just started spontaneously doubting the teachings of Vatican II, hypocrite?
I believed what the Church's approved catechisms have taught me, from childhood. It is you that reject the catechisms that are meant to teach us what to believe, and are approved for that purpose.
As I got older I learned more, but I relied on approved books to learn my Faith.
-
See, if you BoDers (or, rather, FoDers) were actually honest, you'd look at Church teaching and realize that there's no evidence in the BoD citations for Faith of Desire, and you would realize that Faith of Desire leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology / soteriology. If you were honest, you would either reject your heretical Faith of Desire or renounce Traditional Catholicism / Sedevacantism (most of you are sedevacantists).
But the fact that you do not either
1) reject Faith of Desire
OR
2) renounce Traditional Catholicism
means that you are COMPLETELY DISHONEST. If you sat down with a heart open to the Holy Spirit and pondered this question, you couldn't just live in this contradiction.
There is no such thing as Faith of Desire. You invent a vague theological term then attribute it to others. If you deny this, then show me a source that uses that the term.
-
So you just started spontaneously doubting doctrines of the Church? That is very odd.
Luther did the same thing.
I never doubted the doctrines of the Church. And you just started spontaneously doubting the teachings of Vatican II, hypocrite?
You do deny the teaching of the Church. You explicitly refuse to believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
If you say I am wrong, then state clearly and unambiguously that you believe these truths.
-
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
Really? Where did you learn about his individual "enlightenment," directly by God?
My understanding, and from those sympathetic to Fr. Feeney, was that he was reacting to what was being taught at Boston College in the 1940's. There was a rather crass denial of EENS taking place in at least some classrooms.
-
There is no such thing as Faith of Desire.
My point exactly. You distort BoD into FoD and claim that "proofs" for BoD really proof your EENS-rejecting FoD.
-
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
Really? Where did you learn about his individual "enlightenment," directly by God?
Obviously I'm not referring to some kind of direct locution or revelation or inspiration but the rather the ordinary way in which God naturally leads people to the truth.
-
Again the line of attack (on the various threads) has returned to BoD / BoB for catechumens. In addition to ad hominem attacks on Father Feeney and the Dimonds.
These EENS-denying heretics refuse to actually address their heresy, which is Faith of Desire.
I think it is because they know nothing but the few lines that they parrot. What we are discussing is not in their "play book".
Ask the same question of their teachers and they won't have an answer either. It is undeniable that they deny the clearest dogma ever written concerning EENS, they deny the 1700 year old Athanasian Creed, the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers, AND they have not a Father, Saint , Doctor, or council that teaches what they believe, that someone can be saved who has no explicity desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
About the best I have gotten from them is that they can't condemn the teaching because St. Aphonsus Ligouri did not. Meanwhile, I can quote them all over the place calling me a heretic and committing mortal sin for believing John 3:5 as it is written and St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Amrose and all the other saints, and clear dogmas, as they are written. They have not one Father, Doctor, Saint, Council and yet they call me a heretic and say that they can't condemn those that deny the need explicit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation.
They are all about feelings and no reasoning
-
There is no such thing as Faith of Desire.
My point exactly. You distort BoD into FoD and claim that "proofs" for BoD really proof your EENS-rejecting FoD.
Unlike you, I used carefully defined theological terms. Your and Bowler's term, Faith of Desire is made up and is not a Catholic term.
It is further proof that the two of you think so highly of yourselves to make up and define your own theology, and then thrust it onto others.
-
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
Really? Where did you learn about his individual "enlightenment," directly by God?
My understanding, and from those sympathetic to Fr. Feeney, was that he was reacting to what was being taught at Boston College in the 1940's. There was a rather crass denial of EENS taking place in at least some classrooms.
Ladi, I notice you refrained from commenting on the second paragraph. You make the rather gratuitous statement that. Fr. Feeney was motivated by noticing "something gravely wrong."
Do you have any proof for this, or is it like everything else?
-
Prove to me your interpretation of Florence is not a novelty, i.e. show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do. If Florence really taught it, you would be easily able to do this. The reason you cannot do this is because Florence never taught such a thing, nor considered the question at all.
This is how you determine truth "show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do"? That's just an end run. The dogma is clearest dogma on EENS that there is, and yet you deny it. If the Fathers are not unanimous (considered infallible) in teaching the same as Florence, then they are unanimous in nothing. The Council of Florence is repeating what was put into the Athanasian Creed 1000 years before. You can't produce one Father, Doctor, or Saint that taught otherwise. And yet you ask me to show you others who thought the way I do? The entire Church proclaimed it! What more proof can I give you. If someone were sent back from the dead to proclaim it to you you would not believe it.
If one does not condemn the teaching that one can be saved without explcit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, if one does not condemn them, then they are part of the problem, and have not a leg to stand on when the modernist walk all over tradition.
Bowler, the problem is that you have no other Catholic who has read Florence the way you do. Further, and this is more damning to your position, you claim there are multiple approved sources opposing Florence, yet nobody has ever noticed, commented on, or condemned those multitude of errors.
-
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
Really? Where did you learn about his individual "enlightenment," directly by God?
My understanding, and from those sympathetic to Fr. Feeney, was that he was reacting to what was being taught at Boston College in the 1940's. There was a rather crass denial of EENS taking place in at least some classrooms.
Ladi, I notice you refrained from commenting on the second paragraph. You make the rather gratuitous statement that. Fr. Feeney was motivated by noticing "something gravely wrong."
Do you have any proof for this, or is it like everything else?
It's based on my reading of a biography of Father Feeney written by someone who knew him (can't remember which one). Father Feeney's journey began with a general perception that something was wrong with the American Church in particular; he saw the fruits.
That's not unlike most Traditional Catholics' journey, where there's a general gut feel based on the sensus fidei that there's something wrong with the Conciliar Church.
-
Unlike you, I used carefully defined theological terms. Your and Bowler's term, Faith of Desire is made up and is not a Catholic term.
It is a term I coined to describe a real distinction. There's BoD as applied to those who have embraced the Catholic faith and intend to join the Church, and there's BoD (as applied by you and by Suprema Haec) to those who have not embraced the Catholic faith and can be said to have supernatural faith by virtue of their general desire to be conformed to God's Will (cf. Suprema Haec).
You resent the term because it flushes you out from your dishonest hiding behind BoD for catechumens as cover for your Faith of Desire position. Your rejection of the term is just more game-playing on your part because you hate the fact that 98% of the quotes you paste in here about BoD do not support your heretical EENS-denial.
-
Bowler, the problem is that you have no other Catholic who has read Florence the way you do.
Yeah, bowler, no one reads when Florence say that "pagans cannot be saved" as meaning "pagans cannot be saved". REAL Catholics who properly interpret this (such as Bishop Fellay) read "pagans cannot be saved" as "pagans can be saved". Consequently, you're a heretic for not reading Florence to be teaching the exact opposite of what Florence actually says.
-
Father Feeney knew that something was gravely wrong with faith among US Catholics. He kept searching for the key and eventually God enlightened him.
Really? Where did you learn about his individual "enlightenment," directly by God?
My understanding, and from those sympathetic to Fr. Feeney, was that he was reacting to what was being taught at Boston College in the 1940's. There was a rather crass denial of EENS taking place in at least some classrooms.
Ladi, I notice you refrained from commenting on the second paragraph. You make the rather gratuitous statement that. Fr. Feeney was motivated by noticing "something gravely wrong."
Do you have any proof for this, or is it like everything else?
It's based on my reading of a biography of Father Feeney written by someone who knew him (can't remember which one). Father Feeney's journey began with a general perception that something was wrong with the American Church in particular; he saw the fruits.
That's not unlike most Traditional Catholics' journey, where there's a general gut feel based on the sensus fidei that there's something wrong with the Conciliar Church.
Produce the text. I think you are wrong here, but I suspect you'll tell us the text is packed away somewhere in your basement.
-
Bowler, the problem is that you have no other Catholic who has read Florence the way you do.
Yeah, bowler, no one reads when Florence say that "pagans cannot be saved" as meaning "pagans cannot be saved". REAL Catholics who properly interpret this (such as Bishop Fellay) read "pagans cannot be saved" as "pagans can be saved". Consequently, you're a heretic for not reading Florence to be teaching the exact opposite of what Florence actually says.
Further, and this is more damning to your position, you claim there are multiple approved sources opposing Florence, yet nobody has ever noticed, commented on, or condemned those multitude of errors.
-
Produce the text. I think you are wrong here, but I suspect you'll tell us the text is packed away somewhere in your basement.
Stop being an ass. I don't have quite the library that you do for cutting and pasting onto forums. Consequently, I go a lot from memory. This point isn't even all that important.
-
While I don't recall the place I originally read it, I found this using Google. I'm not sure why I bother to try satisfying your dishonesty anyway, since it's obviously all calculated to distract from anything of substance.
http://alcazar.net/Feeney2.html
According to Mr. Potter, Fr. Feeney was introduced to St. Benedict Center in 1942 by a friend of Mrs. Catherine Clarke. He was later asked to become spiritual director at the Center. This he agreed to do with the permission of his Jesuit superior. At first, Fr. Feeney worked at the Center on a part-time basis. But by 1945 his work at the Center was so time consuming that he sought and received permission from his superior to work there full time.
It was about this same time, as well, that Fr. Feeney began his search for what may be called the doctrinal missing link that would explain the corruption of the Catholic Faith in America, as he perceived it. By 1945 Fr. Feeney apparently considered that the Faith, as it was practiced in this country, was essentially defective. He reasoned, it seems, that this condition was caused by the neglect of a particular truth of the Catholic Faith,
And so he sought to find this “displaced” doctrine. This missing link, he believed, would explain the transition from the teaching of sound Catholic doctrine to doctrinal corruption. His search lasted two years until he discovered the missing doctrine in 1947. In July of 1947, he announced “to the center that surely extra ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation] was [to quote Gary Potter] the ‘displaced’ linch-pin doctrine they sought and which the Church needed to reaffirm.” [Gary Potter, After the Boston Heresy Case (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures Books, 1995), p. 48.]
-
It was about this same time, as well, that Fr. Feeney began his search for what may be called the doctrinal missing link that would explain the corruption of the Catholic Faith in America, as he perceived it. By 1945 Fr. Feeney apparently considered that the Faith, as it was practiced in this country, was essentially defective. He reasoned, it seems, that this condition was caused by the neglect of a particular truth of the Catholic Faith,
And so he sought to find this “displaced” doctrine. This missing link, he believed, would explain the transition from the teaching of sound Catholic doctrine to doctrinal corruption. His search lasted two years until he discovered the missing doctrine in 1947. In July of 1947, he announced “to the center that surely extra ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation] was [to quote Gary Potter] the ‘displaced’ linch-pin doctrine they sought and which the Church needed to reaffirm.” [Gary Potter, After the Boston Heresy Case (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures Books, 1995), p. 48.]
There was not any widespread doctrinal corruption in America in the 1940's. This is a "traditionalist" myth. If you disagree, prove your case. By proof, I don't want to see outliers, but evidence of systematic and widespread corruption. If you want, I will save you the trouble, it did not exist.
Feeney began with a good start, by reminding Catgolocs of EENS. He should have gone to the Holy Office and worked within the structure of the Church. He did not and chose to disobey, and lead his followers to their cult compound in Still River, MA. There, they lived their lives in cultish conditions cut off from the legitimate authorizes of the Church.
-
Bowler, the problem is that you have no other Catholic who has read Florence the way you do.
Yeah, bowler, no one reads when Florence say that "pagans cannot be saved" as meaning "pagans cannot be saved". REAL Catholics who properly interpret this (such as Bishop Fellay) read "pagans cannot be saved" as "pagans can be saved". Consequently, you're a heretic for not reading Florence to be teaching the exact opposite of what Florence actually says.
Further, and this is more damning to your position, you claim there are multiple approved sources opposing Florence, yet nobody has ever noticed, commented on, or condemned those multitude of errors.
Studiously avoiding this one, Ladi?
-
Bowler, the problem is that you have no other Catholic who has read Florence the way you do.
Yeah, bowler, no one reads when Florence say that "pagans cannot be saved" as meaning "pagans cannot be saved". REAL Catholics who properly interpret this (such as Bishop Fellay) read "pagans cannot be saved" as "pagans can be saved". Consequently, you're a heretic for not reading Florence to be teaching the exact opposite of what Florence actually says.
Further, and this is more damning to your position, you claim there are multiple approved sources opposing Florence, yet nobody has ever noticed, commented on, or condemned those multitude of errors.
Studiously avoiding this one, Ladi?
That's because I don't even understand your question and what you're talking about.
-
None of you BoDers is honest at all. I'm not going to continue wasting my time posting on these subjects (BoD or SVism) in which you are all entrenched and refuse to listen to anything to runs contrary to your position. I have only continued in the interests of any sincere and honest third parties who may be on these threads, but it's impossible to have even a rational discussion of the subject. Whenever a point is raised that damages your position, you just redirect, change the subject, ignore it, paste multiple paragraphs that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, etc.
You guys simply do not believe in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. You do not believe in it because you do not WANT to believe in it. You guys refuse to admit that the V2 ecclesiology didn't magically appear on a sunny afternoon in 1962, you guys say that Suprema Haec is binding but that V2 is heretical, even though the ecclesiology is identical. You guys are basically in bad will, and I'm not going to waste another second of my time on you.
If there's anyone here at CI who's actually interested and is sincerely searching for the truth, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I'm done with the likes of you guys.
-
There was not any widespread doctrinal corruption in America in the 1940's. This is a "traditionalist" myth.
What a joke. You have to be kidding us. St. Pius X said that the decay had gotten so far that humanly speaking the Church was finished. Gregory XVI said that the error of religious indifferentism was widespread in his day, a couple hundred years ago. That's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. All of America was tremendously orthodox and magically and suddenly apostatized. All of the Pius XII-appointed bishops were all mini St. Pius Xs and suddenly become apostate at Vatican II. Give us a break. You're an incredible liar.
-
Modernism and Americanism, two officially condemned heresies in 1893 and 1899 respectively, had already plagued the Church before the 40's. Heresies have always been there all along since the beginning, fighting against the Church Militant, and there is a reason why.
-
There was not any widespread doctrinal corruption in America in the 1940's. This is a "traditionalist" myth.
What a joke. You have to be kidding us. St. Pius X said that the decay had gotten so far that humanly speaking the Church was finished. Gregory XVI said that the error of religious indifferentism was widespread in his day, a couple hundred years ago. That's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. All of America was tremendously orthodox and magically and suddenly apostatized. All of the Pius XII-appointed bishops were all mini St. Pius Xs and suddenly become apostate at Vatican II. Give us a break. You're an incredible liar.
If it is as you say then prove it. Your assertions without proof are meaningless. The onus is on you, as you are the accuser. Ranting is not proof.
-
I've only read the last 2 pages of this thread (I usually stay away from these BOD/BOBs) so this may not be relevent. But I think it shows the rot goes back before the 40's. Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on January 22, 1899.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
-
I've only read the last 2 pages of this thread (I usually stay away from these BOD/BOBs) so this may not be relevent. But I think it shows the rot goes back before the 40's. Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on January 22, 1899.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
I understand Americanism and the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. If you wish to apply that to the U.S. Bishops in the 20th century, you need demonstrate which bishops were corrupt and form a case against them individually.
To show widespread corruption, a case would need to be made against numerous bishops and priests, citing evidence of their doctrinal corruption.
I have never seen anything but rash accusations against these bishops, such as the unproven accusations being thrown out by Ladislaus.
The U.S. bishops and priests of the 1930s, 40s and 50s have a right to their reputations and good names. I find it strange that some who call themselves Catholics will trash the good names of these men without being able to show a shred of proof against any of them.
-
None of you BoDers is honest at all. I'm not going to continue wasting my time posting on these subjects (BoD or SVism) in which you are all entrenched and refuse to listen to anything to runs contrary to your position. I have only continued in the interests of any sincere and honest third parties who may be on these threads, but it's impossible to have even a rational discussion of the subject. Whenever a point is raised that damages your position, you just redirect, change the subject, ignore it, paste multiple paragraphs that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, etc.
You guys simply do not believe in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. You do not believe in it because you do not WANT to believe in it. You guys refuse to admit that the V2 ecclesiology didn't magically appear on a sunny afternoon in 1962, you guys say that Suprema Haec is binding but that V2 is heretical, even though the ecclesiology is identical. You guys are basically in bad will, and I'm not going to waste another second of my time on you.
If there's anyone here at CI who's actually interested and is sincerely searching for the truth, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I'm done with the likes of you guys.
Modernists in disguise! blindly or purposely, they say " don't give me any facts, I have made up my mind". Here is the typical modernist tactic:
Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of the defined dogmas. However, they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean. This astute and sneaky method allows for an evolution of meaning within a dogma. This absolutely undermines the immutability of divinely revealed truth. It then allows for an actual denial of the dogma as the Church has always understood it and taught it.
This is exactly what has happened with the EENS dogma, being BOD the convenient loophole from where they can spread the heresy.
As Ladislaus said, Vatican II differs from Traditional "BoDer" ecclesiology only in its pastoral presumption of good faith on the part of those who were not born into Catholic Church. But they are part of the same modernist liberal heresy.
-
None of you BoDers is honest at all. I'm not going to continue wasting my time posting on these subjects (BoD or SVism) in which you are all entrenched and refuse to listen to anything to runs contrary to your position. I have only continued in the interests of any sincere and honest third parties who may be on these threads, but it's impossible to have even a rational discussion of the subject. Whenever a point is raised that damages your position, you just redirect, change the subject, ignore it, paste multiple paragraphs that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, etc.
You guys simply do not believe in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. You do not believe in it because you do not WANT to believe in it. You guys refuse to admit that the V2 ecclesiology didn't magically appear on a sunny afternoon in 1962, you guys say that Suprema Haec is binding but that V2 is heretical, even though the ecclesiology is identical. You guys are basically in bad will, and I'm not going to waste another second of my time on you.
If there's anyone here at CI who's actually interested and is sincerely searching for the truth, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I'm done with the likes of you guys.
Sad but totally true. The trick to dealing with the smokescreeners like Ambrose, LOT and the others is to ignore what they post, and just use their absurdities as an opportunity to teach others the truth. There are I hope, other people on CI reading these threads besides Ambrose and LOT and such.
-
Prove to me your interpretation of Florence is not a novelty, i.e. show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do. If Florence really taught it, you would be easily able to do this. The reason you cannot do this is because Florence never taught such a thing, nor considered the question at all.
This is how you determine truth "show me others who have read Florence in the same way that you do"? That's just an end run. The dogma is clearest dogma on EENS that there is, and yet you deny it. If the Fathers are not unanimous (considered infallible) in teaching the same as Florence, then they are unanimous in nothing. The Council of Florence is repeating what was put into the Athanasian Creed 1000 years before. You can't produce one Father, Doctor, or Saint that taught otherwise. And yet you ask me to show you others who thought the way I do? The entire Church proclaimed it! What more proof can I give you. If someone were sent back from the dead to proclaim it to you you would not believe it.
If one does not condemn the teaching that one can be saved without explcit desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, if one does not condemn them, then they are part of the problem, and have not a leg to stand on when the modernist walk all over tradition.
-
Practically all the believers in EENS as it is written, have stated repeatedly that there is no point in discussing the innocuous theories of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood, and yet for BODers like LOT, Ambrose and all others, 99% of what they post is about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of blood.
And they complain about too many BOD threads? We've told them continuously and ad-nauseum that we are not discussing BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and yet they continue to post only about BOD & BOB of the catechumen. What's with that?
If one looks at what is actually written by BODers here on CI, and also at all the so-called "traditionalist" BODers websites and books, 99.99% of the evidence they post is about BOD & BOB of the catechumen, meanwhile, they don't even believe that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire for martyrdom, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation. Those books and websites all end up teaching something which is opposed to the dogmatic decree of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint or council. (the teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity). Yet they NEVER address the fact that it is opposed to every source (Father, Doctor, Saint, Council) that they sight in defense of BOD & BOB of the catechumen.
If BODers were stripped of the BOD & BOB of the catechumen smokescreen, all these so-called BOD threads on CI would vanish. The same would happen to all the books, and websites of BODers. Why? Because once the light is shined on their final belief, they don't have a leg to stand on in their believing and teaching that people are saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom, or to be Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Always remember this you believers in John 3:5 and EENS as it is written. Don't let them waste your time discussing catechumens and martyrs who die "by accident" before they are baptized, for they are way past that belief.
-
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ
DOGMA:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)
BODers deny Creeds
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Produce the text. I think you are wrong here, but I suspect you'll tell us the text is packed away somewhere in your basement.
Stop being an ass. I don't have quite the library that you do for cutting and pasting onto forums. Consequently, I go a lot from memory. This point isn't even all that important.
When you say something, be able to show us where you got it. It's that simple.
You guys complain when I provide the actual screenshot of a book, then you complain when I post the text of a book. I guess you just don't like books, Ladi.
-
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.