Keep your restless Dimondide minds at ease. Unlike you, I don’t relay solely on one source. All I am trying to demonstrate here is how many hoops you have to jump through and how ridiculous your stance is while doing so.
You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.
How absurd was this saint, doesn't he know? If only he was told by some of the "learned" from here. Valentinian the Younger was not real! Jokes on him.
While we are at it, let’s warn people about “heresies” in 1917 catholic encyclopaedia as well. How dare they say this was common teaching.
What modernists are to doctrine, what recognise and resistors are to papacy, feenyites are to theologians, doctors, canon law, & catechisms..
Pax & Stubborn, at least you keep it civil so I have no problem continuing with you too. If the foul mouther wants to contribute, hopefully he will keep his tongue in check.
Pax- of course theologians can be fallible. But good grief you feenyites paint them as useful as of gargoyles. They are just there to sit and scare people out of Church with their errors. When they casually spill ink. Not much use.. Riiight.
Stubborn, now let’s try this again. See if you can read this paragraph slowly with comprehension. If you cannot, just read the bolded.
"For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683
As Fr. Joachim Salaverri states, “The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.”
But can you listen to the consent of theologians? Of course you cannot.
And why not? Well, it would crumble your feenyite theology in a second. Dimonds wouldn't allow it. You have to bow down to their interpretations. Very clever, very slick.
Once all theologians are out of the way, the room is open for the self appointed theologians.
Here is a short cheatsheet for Feenyites:
Cite the doctor and Father of Church when you like what they say.
If you don't like what he says- he errs of course. Or tell others he only gives his own opinion.
Canon law - not infallible (don't forget Eastern Churches were not notified)
Catechisms- ohh, very faiilible. Who reads those to instruct the faithful?
-->Roman catechism- defer to delayed ensoulment section. Diminish, diminish, diminish...
-->Saint Pius X cathecism- tell everyone it was only promulgated in Italy and pope Pius X had no clue what was in it, he had better things to do.
Theologians - for goodness sake, throw them under the bus any time you can. Very very fallible creatures. You have better chance of winning a lotto than get them to agree on the correct doctrine.
And by far my favourite one. If a saint teaches BOB/BOD he is in tiny error, no biggie it happens to the best of them. (Bonus points cite Aquinas and Immaculate Conception)
But if a laymen cite their writings, do not lose a good opportunity to call them heretics who will burn in hell and lead others there too.
Topic: Baptism of Desire is Church Teaching (Read 57494 times)