Author Topic: BOD Status Quaestionis (Read 11019 times)

SJB · « **Reply #95 on:** August 17, 2013, 04:27:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Nishant,

What you wrote is your opinion that is all. You are explaining away an endless list of clear dogmas with air.

And in all of those clear dogmas NEVER ONCE did any of the popes place any qualifiers like you add. That should tell you something.

Quote
It is remarkable someone can quote Pope Innocent III on EENS, and fail to mention he taught both BOD and EENS because, as is plain to everyone .

The dogma is declared by the Holy Ghost through Innocent III.
Innocent III's personal opinions (which you claim he had) did not make it into the dogma. Why is that?

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …

Why has not ONCE any dogmatic decree OF THE HOLY GHOST declared anything other than what Cantate Domino clearly states?

Quote

"Next, he [Pope Innocent III] comes to the article about the effect of grace. First, he speaks of the effect of grace with regard to the unity of the Church, saying: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." Now, the unity of the Church is nothing other than the congregation of the faithful. Since it is impossible to please God without faith, there can be no place of salvation other than in the Church. Furthermore, the salvation of the faithful is consummated through the sacraments of the Church, in which the power of Christ's Passion is operative."

--In I. Decret., Op. omnia, of St. Thomas Aquinas, Parma ed., v. 16, p. 305. (Commentary on the Decree Firmiter of Pope Innocent III, IV Council of the Lateran, 1215)

Alcuin · « **Reply #96 on:** August 17, 2013, 07:40:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

it's VERY clear to me that those most who call themselves Traditional Catholics today, those who reject EENS, simply do not have the same faith as the Church Fathers; theirs is a warped Vatican II ecclesiology that in fact reduces their resistence to Vatican II to making sure that the correct approved scents of incense are used during Mass and that the bells be rung at certain times during Mass.

It's very frustrating and shows us why Our Lord asked whether there would be faith on earth when He returned.

Your assessment is spot on.

SJB · « **Reply #97 on:** August 17, 2013, 08:04:07 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ladislaus
it's VERY clear to me that those most who call themselves Traditional Catholics today, those who reject EENS, simply do not have the same faith as the Church Fathers; theirs is a warped Vatican II ecclesiology that in fact reduces their resistence to Vatican II to making sure that the correct approved scents of incense are used during Mass and that the bells be rung at certain times during Mass.

It's very frustrating and shows us why Our Lord asked whether there would be faith on earth when He returned.

Your assessment is spot on.

Except your main criticism isn't Vatican II, it is the 500 years prior to Vatican II. In your view the Church defines a dogma every once and a while and it is those definitions and your sole interpretation of them that determines your faith. This is strikingly like both Protestantism and Modernism.

Alcuin · « **Reply #98 on:** August 17, 2013, 08:25:42 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ladislaus
it's VERY clear to me that those most who call themselves Traditional Catholics today, those who reject EENS, simply do not have the same faith as the Church Fathers; theirs is a warped Vatican II ecclesiology that in fact reduces their resistence to Vatican II to making sure that the correct approved scents of incense are used during Mass and that the bells be rung at certain times during Mass.

It's very frustrating and shows us why Our Lord asked whether there would be faith on earth when He returned.

Your assessment is spot on.

Except your main criticism isn't Vatican II, it is the 500 years prior to Vatican II. In your view the Church defines a dogma every once and a while and it is those definitions and your sole interpretation of them that determines your faith. This is strikingly like both Protestantism and Modernism.

I never said anything like that. If fact, one of my very first posts was a video discussing the very thing that Ladislaus is discussing here.

You keep asking people for sources, that nobody noticed this or that but it is YOU who cannot produce one single source to explain how ALL the Church's approved theologians went along with Vatican II.

Stubborn · « **Reply #99 on:** August 17, 2013, 11:10:32 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ladislaus
it's VERY clear to me that those most who call themselves Traditional Catholics today, those who reject EENS, simply do not have the same faith as the Church Fathers; theirs is a warped Vatican II ecclesiology that in fact reduces their resistence to Vatican II to making sure that the correct approved scents of incense are used during Mass and that the bells be rung at certain times during Mass.

It's very frustrating and shows us why Our Lord asked whether there would be faith on earth when He returned.

Your assessment is spot on.

Except your main criticism isn't Vatican II, it is the 500 years prior to Vatican II. In your view the Church defines a dogma every once and a while and it is those definitions and your sole interpretation of them that determines your faith. This is strikingly like both Protestantism and Modernism.

No, when the infallible authority of the Church declares that there is no salvation outside the Church, as obedient children, we don't question it, we take it to mean just what it says. The funny thing about defined dogmas is that any time one attempts to interpret it in any other way than that which it is written, they change it to a meaningless formula.

There is no authority on earth past, present or future, higher than the infallible authority of the Pope when he excersizes the full power of his office, not even that of St. Michael if he were to appear and teach a doctrine which contradicts ex cathedra papal declarations. (Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.)

It all begins at the foundation, which foundation is the infallibly defined dogma - any and all contrary teaching must be regarded at least as being erroneous, regardless of who taught it and regardless of whatever other contributions they have made to the Church - I speak specifically of the saints and doctors so often quoted here.

BODers cling to a wrong idea that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach error - yet all anyone need do is reference V2 and that *should* let them know that they are missing something in the equation, as Alcuin pointed out.

FWIW, the teaching authority of the UOM is entirely capable of teaching error as V2 exemplifies in real time.
Additionally, Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas libenter, December 21, 1863, to the Archbishop Munich explains the parameters necessary for the UOM to teach infallibly - - - if you read the letter, you should find that the UOM only teach infallibly when that which has already been defined is repeated. Not when that which is already defined is interpreted.