CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ambrose

You should stop overthinking these issues and take the path of trust, let go of your distrust and learn to believe what the Church's Doctors and expert theologians are teaching you.

You have made your distrust of the Church's theologians since the days of Vatican II onwards quite known here. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard?

Are you joking?  Your argument makes no sense, as I learn from Catholic theologians, not those who have fallen away into heresy.  

This argument would be a good one against one who accepts Vatican II, Paul VI, and therefore his authority, but it does not apply to me.  

Ambrose, as you know, I consider your sensus catholicus and your ecclesiology to be deeply flawed and self-contradictory.  Nor has "The Church" ever taught BoD.  That's the subject under discussion.  Obviously if I believed that the Church taught BoD I would accept it, since my faith has as it's proximate norm the magisterium of the Church.  Those very same theologians whom you cite as authorities on BoD are the same theologians you rejected in having brought us Vatican II.  Pius XII appointed >90% of the Bishops who brought us Vatican II.  If those bishops are not prevented a priori from having been able to err, then neither are the pre-Vatican II theologians, eh?

Do you REALLY believe that Church theologians right before Vatican II were not thoroughly corrupted with modernism?  Already in his day, St. Pius X said that the Church, humanly speaking, was finished, so thoroughly had theologians IN HIS DAY been infected with modernism.  Do you REALLY believe that everything was great in the Church and then in the blink of an eye suddenly turned bad?  It doesn't happen that way.  If the Church's state were so wonderful at that time, people would not have lapped up the Vatican II errors.

IN FACT, Ambrose, you can trace the origins of Vatican II DIRECTLY to the ecclesiology / soteriology that emerged as a direct result of exploiting this concept of Baptism of Desire to undermine EENS.  You yourself, Ambrose, are guilty of the same error as Vatican II, and therefore by your own criteria are not Catholic.

If you were to hold, as EVERY ONE of those EARLY authorities you cited did, that BoD was a phenomenon restricted to catechumens or those with explicit Catholic faith, and that this was your opinion, then I would have no quarrel with you ... except by way of friendly disagreement.  But when you extend BoD and therefore membership in the Church to those who are not Catholic, are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff, do not have explicit faith in the core supernatural mysteries of the faith, then you are THE SAME as the Vatican II modernists.  In fact, if you were to convince me that this extension of BoD is correct and traditional, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.

Ambrose, as you know, I consider your sensus catholicus and your ecclesiology to be deeply flawed and self-contradictory.  Nor has "The Church" ever taught BoD.  That's the subject under discussion.  Obviously if I believed that the Church taught BoD I would accept it, since my faith has as it's proximate norm the magisterium of the Church.  Those very same theologians whom you cite as authorities on BoD are the same theologians you rejected in having brought us Vatican II.  Pius XII appointed >90% of the Bishops who brought us Vatican II.  If those bishops are not prevented a priori from having been able to err, then neither are the pre-Vatican II theologians, eh?

Do you REALLY believe that Church theologians right before Vatican II were not thoroughly corrupted with modernism?  Already in his day, St. Pius X said that the Church, humanly speaking, was finished, so thoroughly had theologians IN HIS DAY been infected with modernism.  Do you REALLY believe that everything was great in the Church and then in the blink of an eye suddenly turned bad?  It doesn't happen that way.  If the Church's state were so wonderful at that time, people would not have lapped up the Vatican II errors.

IN FACT, Ambrose, you can trace the origins of Vatican II DIRECTLY to the ecclesiology / soteriology that emerged as a direct result of exploiting this concept of Baptism of Desire to undermine EENS.  You yourself, Ambrose, are guilty of the same error as Vatican II, and therefore by your own criteria are not Catholic.

If you were to hold, as EVERY ONE of those EARLY authorities you cited did, that BoD was a phenomenon restricted to catechumens or those with explicit Catholic faith, and that this was your opinion, then I would have no quarrel with you ... except by way of friendly disagreement.  But when you extend BoD and therefore membership in the Church to those who are not Catholic, are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff, do not have explicit faith in the core supernatural mysteries of the faith, then you are THE SAME as the Vatican II modernists.  In fact, if you were to convince me that this extension of BoD is correct and traditional, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.

All of these points have been addressed and answered.  I do not wish to go in circles with you.  You will have to decide what path you will take.  I hope that when the Pope comes again, you will not continue this with him, as it will lead to your excommunication.  

I know I am right of this, as I have every authority in my side: Council of Trent, Popes, all approved catechisms, all of the Doctors of the Church, the theologians, and canon law.

On your side against all these authorities you have the SBC and the Dimonds and their private interpretations of Church docuмents and the Fathers.  

This should be a no-brainer for any Catholic.  I do not know why you can't see it, but I will leave it at that.