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

Author Topic: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance  (Read 26419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2022, 10:31:14 AM »
Ridiculous. Arguably the greatest of all the councils in the Church purposely did not teach clearly? Are we to believe that Trent taught infallible ambiguity? Balderdash.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - First Vatican Council
The quote says: that meaning of the dogma must be maintained which has once been declared. Can you tell me where the meaning of the dogma has been declared? It cannot be in the dogma itself.

Your accusations against me in your first paragraph are also baseless. Pope Sixtus established a congregation for the interpretation and execution of the Council of Trent. You can read that here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

If interpretation was not necessary, this congregation would have been useless.

The entire field of theology would also be useless. Because if we simply need all the dogmas, we could just make a list of them and give that to every catholic. Instead we have theology manuals, explaining the meaning of articles of faith etc. All of that would be useless if the dogmas needed no interpretation.

Re: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2022, 10:48:00 AM »
The quote says: that meaning of the dogma must be maintained which has once been declared. Can you tell me where the meaning of the dogma has been declared? It cannot be in the dogma itself.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why do we even have the Magisterium :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: :jester::jester::jester::jester:

Jay Dyer is totally right that Catholicism as presented by RnRs is no different from Protestantism and Orthodoxy, just replace interpreting the Bible and Tradition with interpreting the Magisterium LOL.

There is no interpreting dogmas, dogmas are clear and they were clear when they were declared immediately and they retained the meaning once declared.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Exactly what it says on the tin.
Let me help you:
Extra   - Ecclesiam     -   Nulla  -  Salus
Outside - the Church  -   ZERO - are saved

ZERO. Not maybe no one, not ONE, not two, not ten. No one.



Quote
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”


Real and natural water. 

Water. Water. Water....

There's no explaining away "water" to mean no water. 

If I said to you: "I desire water. Could you please give me some water."
And you came back with an empty glass and said: "Here's your 'water of desire'."
I would have every right to punch you for your insolence.

But you suppose God would play such a sick joke on someone.

St. Gregory nαzιanzen:


Quote
If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

The Roman Breviary says this for May 9th concerning St. Gregory nαzιanzen:
Quote
“In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/st-gregory-nαzιanzen-baptism/


Please excuse the strong words, I am trying to snap you out of your heretical mindset.

God bless you.




Re: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2022, 10:48:48 AM »
Well, if the meaning of that which is declared is to be maintained as declared, but can be understood in any other way at all, then it seems obvious that it's meaning will not be maintained. Heck, that's pretty much the same formula that V2 went with, ie say one thing but can mean some thing(s) else.

Clear teachings get misunderstood due to people misunderstanding what is being taught, not because what is being taught is not clear - preconceived notions might be the biggest culprit. By that I mean people take their mindset to these teachings and they see in these various teachings what they already believe. And what they do not believe, they do not see, or refuse to see, not sure which.
.
Vatican I does not say that the meaning of that which is declared must be maintained 'as declared'. It says that the declared meaning must be maintained.  'As declared' is your addition.  'As it reads', that passage from Vatican I does not give us any particular rule for interpreting dogma except to maintain whatever meaning the Church declared. This is a simple point, Stubborn. 
.


Re: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2022, 10:54:51 AM »
No need to be rude. I was just happy that Mr. Derksen hadn't fallen into this heresy.
.
Forgive my terseness. I weary of young trad men mounting the Internet on personal crusade to uncover every rock in search of the Church's enemies, devoting their time to the study of what they deem evil rather than what they deem good. If you are not one of them, I judged rashly. I do hope the best for you in either case. 

Re: Breaking: NOW (M. Derksen) Rejects Invincible Ignorance
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2022, 10:57:29 AM »
I have heard these and similar things from the Dimonds as well.
But considering that after the Council of Trent the Pope established a seperate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees, the idea that interpreting a dogma is not allowed must be wrong.
In actuality, language works in a way so that it must always be interpreted. And everyone interprets to a degree whenever he hears words or sentences. Only through interpretation they convey any meaning to him.
So the question is not whether intepretation is allowed or not but rather to whom is given authority to interpret.
And I think that authority belongs to those theologians who were tasked with it; not the Dimonds.
You are abusing the word "interpretation".  We don't interpret dictionaries.  We read the definitions and then we simply accept (or possibly reject) them.  To say that we are interpreting dictionaries is to admit that language has no objective meaning.  That's false.  Likewise, defined dogmas are like definitions.  They are clear statements of what every Catholic is required to believe.  We are bound by the literal meaning.  Those who are not sufficiently educated might need to have the terms explained to them.  But the intention of defining a dogma is that any bishop or priest with sufficient seminary training should be able to immediately understand the terms and the intended meaning of the statement.