This is really bad. You seriously sound like a Protestant. I don’t think Ladislaus would even agree with such a statement.
What you and the other “semi Feeneyites” are doing here is you’re basing your argument solely on primary sources and *your* interpretation of them. This is akin to Protestants proof texting Holy Scripture. Catholics don’t act in this manner.
You're still promoting Cekadism. If you want to hear from "secondary" sources, let's cite this secondary source who, unlike Father Cekada, was actually considered a theologian, namely, Msgr. Fenton.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htmThere is, of course, a definite task incuмbent upon the private theologians in the Church’s process of bringing the teachings of the papal encyclicals to the people. The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these docuмents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the least valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
So, what you refer to as "Protestantism" Msgr. Fenton, an actual theologian, refers to as a "bizarre thesis". Of course, Newman's idea was that theologians could "interpret away" dogmatic pronouncements such as regarding papal infallibility, and he floated notions regarding the development of doctrine.
We've had theologians for centuries now telling everyone what no salvation outside the Church REALLY means, and they're all over the map, including those in the last century leading up to V2 who claimed that if you believe that non-Catholics CANNOT be saved, that means you're a heretic who denies EENS. It's a diabolical inversion. This would be Newman's idea of "development of doctrine", which is basically Modernist, despite Sean Johnson's contention to the contrary.
We don't dismiss theologians as having no value, but we also don't confuse them with the
Ecclesia Docens. We are entitled to disagree with any theologian, even a Doctor of the Church (who on a fair number of issues disagreed with one another), until the Magisterium steps in to resolve the matter.
I know of no theologian, anyway, who's dealt with the passages from Trent that we're considering here.
Finally, ALL the Church's theologians (with the single exception that I know of, +Guerard des Lauriers) accepted and endorsed as Catholic the teachings of Vatican II. How do you resolve that contradiction? Were they all non-Catholic apostates before Vatican II started? If so, how far before Vatican II? Were they apostate by the late 1940s (when the Father Feeney case arose)? 1920? Or did they just all become heretics on July 14th, 1962?
Topic: BoD and justification (Read 34857 times)