Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 19

Author Topic: BoD and justification  (Read 34938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2897/-667
  • Gender: Male
Re: BoD and justification
« Reply #195 on: September 12, 2023, 03:45:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 12, 2023, 03:13:04 PM
    Absolutely not.

    1.  You're living proof there's not consistency because you can't explain the nature of justification via BOD and the details therein.
    2.  Trent didn't explain this, nor did it explain how the lack of the indelible mark affects a BOD'er, nor did it explain how a person could "self-baptize" via BOD while the idea of "self-baptizing" via the actual sacrament is invalid.
    3.  There are legitimately NO details regarding BOD that come from Trent.  None.  And the few saints/doctors that attempted to come up with details, contradict Trent.

    :facepalm: You did not read my question correctly, here it is again: Do you admit that BOD was exclusively and consistently taught post Trent? I did not ask you if Trent necessarily taught BOD, but was it taught exclusively and consistently post Trent.

    If it wasn’t, you would certainly be able to give some references to that effect.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12642
    • Reputation: +8042/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #196 on: September 12, 2023, 04:21:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Do you admit that BOD was exclusively and consistently taught post Trent?
    1.  The idea of BOD has been around both before and after Trent.
    2.  Was BOD "exclusively" taught post Trent?  No. 
      a.  (If you mean, there was a "common opinion" that it existed, somehow) then i'd say "probably".
    3.  Was BOD "consistently" held (i.e. was there agreement on the details of this doctrine?).  Absolutely not.

    Conclusion:
    1.  A "doctrinal teaching" by Church authority must necessarily require assent by all members of the Church, under pain of sin.
    2.  A "doctrinal teaching" must have some level of detailed explanation.  In the case of sacraments/grace, there has to exist some explanation of the "process".
      a.  Who can receive the grace?  When?  How?  Requirements?  Etc.
      b.  There is 0% agreement on this type of detail.
    3.  A "common opinion" of theologians is not a teaching.
    4.  A "common opinion" which cannot trace its roots back to Apostolic teaching (i.e. Tradition) or Scripture is certainly not a teaching.
    5.  A "common opinion" which does not jive with an infallible council (Trent) could never be a teaching.
    6.  A "common opinion" which only agrees that a truth exists, but can't explain the details, is not a teaching.
    7.  A "common opinion" which continues to evolve over the decades/centuries, and which details have changed from the 1500s til now, is not a teaching.

    BOD is, at best, a theory which has been held by many, agreed upon by some, and explained by no one.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #197 on: September 12, 2023, 04:36:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Post deleted.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12642
    • Reputation: +8042/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #198 on: September 12, 2023, 04:46:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    It should be easy for you to give a single reference post Trent that says BOD is not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine.
    No, that's not how it works.  The Church's job is to tell everyone - clearly, distinctly and forcefully - that x, y or z is a doctrine.  And it MUST be held, or you cannot be saved.  This does not exist for BOD.


    All we have, post-Trent, are theories.  Nowhere has the Church ever defined this truth, nor made it obligatory to believe.  Nowhere has the Church declared it is Apostolic in origin or proved by Scripture.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #199 on: September 12, 2023, 04:58:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 12, 2023, 04:46:45 PM
    No, that's not how it works.  The Church's job is to tell everyone - clearly, distinctly and forcefully - that x, y or z is a doctrine.  And it MUST be held, or you cannot be saved.  This does not exist for BOD.


    All we have, post-Trent, are theories.  Nowhere has the Church ever defined this truth, nor made it obligatory to believe.  Nowhere has the Church declared it is Apostolic in origin or proved by Scripture.

    That is absolutely untrue. You don’t have to believe JUST in dogmatic definitions, which carry the censure of heresy for disbelief. There are many more teachings of the Church that must be believed which carry different censures short of heresy.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12642
    • Reputation: +8042/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #200 on: September 12, 2023, 08:38:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I said “doctrine” (which are many in number) not dogmatic definitions (which, in comparison, are few).  

    You use the term “teaching” way too loosely.  So what “teaching level” is BOD?  Where is this explained?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47134
    • Reputation: +27934/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #201 on: September 13, 2023, 12:19:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 12, 2023, 04:58:14 PM
    That is absolutely untrue. You don’t have to believe JUST in dogmatic definitions, which carry the censure of heresy for disbelief. There are many more teachings of the Church that must be believed which carry different censures short of heresy.

    Yeah, but the issue here is that you conflate the opinions of theologians with "teachings of the Church".  As Msgr. Fenton pointed out, their interpretations are not to be confused with the doctrinal authority of the Church.

    Also, one must avoid the extreme of some SVs who in overreacting to R&R have grossly exaggerated the extent of the Church's infallibility, where even these lesser teachings are held to be effectively infallible.

    Probably the most balanced treatment of the matter that I've seen comes from Msgr. Fenton in his paper about the authority of papal encyclicals.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47134
    • Reputation: +27934/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #202 on: September 13, 2023, 12:21:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 12, 2023, 04:21:13 PM
    BOD is, at best, a theory which has been held by many, agreed upon by some, and explained by no one.

    Yes, although I fail to see any kind of "agreement" on BoD, as there are myriad different explanations of what it is, how it works, to whom it applies, the greatest common denominator being, sadly, that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #203 on: September 16, 2023, 05:03:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here is Bishop Hay writing in the late 18th century about how liberal Catholics want to extend the EENS dogma and how “invisible ignorance” is incorrectly applied. 


    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2534
    • Reputation: +1302/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #204 on: September 16, 2023, 05:34:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 16, 2023, 05:03:19 AM
    Here is Bishop Hay writing in the late 18th century about how liberal Catholics want to extend the EENS dogma and how “invisible ignorance” is incorrectly applied.
    I quickly skimmed through it. It seems the Bishop correctly understands that Inv Ign doesn't condemn a man but his other sins do, and that those who are elect among inv ign will be brought into the Church (baptism) and learn the basic necessities of faith.

    It's sad that most modern trads think that those 'good pagans' can be saved in the state of ignorance outside the church *by* the church. Hereby denying the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
    Logged

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14865
    • Reputation: +6154/-916
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #205 on: September 16, 2023, 05:49:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The term "invincible ignorance," being incomplete and ambiguous therefore scandalous, should be banished from all Catholic's vocabulary whenever speaking or referring to anything having to do with a BOD and the EENS dogma.

    That term should be replaced 100% of the time in thought and word with PPIX's words: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #206 on: September 16, 2023, 08:33:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on September 16, 2023, 05:49:48 AM
    The term "invincible ignorance," being incomplete and ambiguous therefore scandalous, should be banished from all Catholic's vocabulary whenever speaking or referring to anything having to do with a BOD and the EENS dogma.

    That term should be replaced 100% of the time in thought and word with PPIX's words: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."

    Instead of spouting your preconceived notions, spend a few minutes reading Bishop Hay.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14865
    • Reputation: +6154/-916
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #207 on: September 16, 2023, 11:21:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 16, 2023, 08:33:47 AM
    Instead of spouting your preconceived notions, spend a few minutes reading Bishop Hay.
    I spouted Pope Pius XII's teaching, which in the one sentence I posted says what +Hay says in 4 pages.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47134
    • Reputation: +27934/-5206
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #208 on: September 16, 2023, 11:50:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 16, 2023, 08:33:47 AM
    Instead of spouting your preconceived notions, spend a few minutes reading Bishop Hay.

    OK, so?  We obviously agree with rejecting the notion of somehow elevating invincible ignorance to something positively salvific.  To do that would essentially be to promote Pelagianism.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #209 on: September 16, 2023, 12:35:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 16, 2023, 11:50:42 AM
    OK, so?  We obviously agree with rejecting the notion of somehow elevating invincible ignorance to something positively salvific.  To do that would essentially be to promote Pelagianism.

    Because Stubborn seems to think that the term is scandalous and should be banned when used in reference to BOD. Bishop Hay along with many other theologians obviously don’t agree. 
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?
    Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 19
    « previous next »