Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: ServusInutilisDomini on November 06, 2022, 02:12:18 PM
-
http://disq.us/p/2rrthk3
(https://i.imgur.com/Zv5CFUl.png)
-
Too bad he rejects the baptism part of Pope Gregory's teaching.
-
Great. That's a step in the right direction. He does stop a bit short of affirming, however, that he believes in that position, or believes that the "Rewarder God" theory is unacceptable and untenable. But not a few Traditional Catholics hold that you're basically a "Feeneyite heretic" if you say that infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. cannot be saved.
-
Too bad he rejects the baptism part of Pope Gregory's teaching.
See, here's another thing about Baptism. It is certainly heretical to claim that someone can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, and unfortunately a great many anti-BoDers say, think, and hold exactly that.
In debates I've had in the past with BoDers, I've exhorted them to at least re-articulate their support for BoD in such a way as not to deny the necessity of the SACRAMENT for salvation. "Hey, if you're going to believe in BoD, at least say that they must receive the Sacrament in voto rather than say that they don't need to receive the Sacrament or that they can be saved without the Sacrament." But the ones I asked to reconsider refused to do so.
St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, never said that anyone could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, only that they could receive the Sacrament in voto. There's a HUGE difference there that is lost on most of the BoD advocates. This formulation preserves the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation, while the vast majority deny it ... and are therefore heretical.
-
This was before your time here, Servus, but there was a poster here, Xavier Nishant, who (before he was banned for other reasons) eventually came around and started to hold that those who are justified by desire would at least be somehow baptized before they died. He came to accept the teaching of St. Augustine on the matter, holding that there's nothing that would prevent God from sending an angel to confer the Sacrament on someone who was in a state of justification and nearing the moment of death. That's actually what St. Cyprian believed was taking place during Baptism of Blood. He referred to it as the Sacrament and said that the angels pronounced the words during the martyrdom.
What is this nonsense that God's Providence can be thwarted by "impossibility" or "unforeseen" death? St. Augustine, after he rejected BoD, that those who "wish to be Catholic" must reject this thinking, that God's Providence could thwart Him from getting the Sacrament to His elect.
To claim that God can be prevented by "impossibility" is in fact clearly heretical. "With God all things are possible." right? To say otherwise is to deny His omnipotence. So the only conclusion is that God wills for some to be saved by BoD instead of actual reception of the Sacrament. So why would He do that exactly? In fact, we have some stories of the saints where the saint raised a deceased person back to life to confer the Sacrament. In one case, there was a woman who was a devout practicing Catholic ... or so it was thought. She went to Holy Communion every day, regular Confession, etc. According to St. Thomas, the reception of Holy Communion would have put her in a state of grace. But she died before the saint could get there. He raised her back to life and started hearing her Confession. Then he abruptly stopped, and asked for water. It was revealed to him that she had not been baptized. So he baptized her and she died.
-
People who believe in BoD really need to read this --
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/miraculous-baptisms/
There are many stories here, but the one I was referring to (St. Peter Claver) --
“When Father Claver arrived at her deathbed, Augustina lay cold to the touch, her body already being prepared for burial. He prayed at her bedside for one hour, when suddenly the woman sat up, vomited a pool of blood, and declared upon being questioned by those in attendance: ‘I have come from journeying along a long road. After I had gone a long way down it, I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said: Stop! You can go no further.’… On hearing this, Father Claver cleared the room and prepared to hear her Confession, thinking she was in need of absolution for some sin she may have forgotten. But in the course of the ritual, St. Peter Claver was inspired to realize that she had never been baptized. He cut short her confession and declined to give her absolution, calling instead for water with which to baptize her. Augustina’s master insisted that she could not possibly need baptism since she had been in his employ for twenty years and had never failed to go to Mass, Confession, and Communion all that time. Nevertheless, Father Claver insisted on baptizing her, after which Augustina died again joyfully and peacefully in the presence of the whole family.”
-
I wonder if he's begun taking MHFM's materials more honestly after the Cassman debate
-
I don't understand why this is described as breaking news. Had Mario previously expressed that belief in the Incarnation was not necessary for salvation?
-
I don't understand why this is described as breaking news. Had Mario previously expressed that belief in the Incarnation was not necessary for salvation?
He's been pretty vocal about BOD and labeling those who defend the true teaching on EENS as "Feeneyites"
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/
-
He's been pretty vocal about BOD and labeling those who defend the true teaching on EENS as "Feeneyites"
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/
.
Is that post supposed to be proof of it? Or the book? I've read the book, the authors never once argue or even suggest that salvation can be had without faith in the Incarnation. And I don't see anything in his post suggesting he thinks salvation can be had without faith in the Incarnation.
-
Perhaps the key word is "explicit"?
-
I don't understand why this is described as breaking news. Had Mario previously expressed that belief in the Incarnation was not necessary for salvation?
It's not breaking news. He has articulated this same position for years.
-
I'm confused by the CMRI's position. They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary. Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position). So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable? The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent). So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally? I don't know. I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue. They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary. Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals. And interpreting dogma is not allowed. We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians. I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.
-
I don't understand why this is described as breaking news. Had Mario previously expressed that belief in the Incarnation was not necessary for salvation?
I've never heard him say he doesn't bieve that and he links to introibo's blog which calls people who reject invincible ignorance feeneyites and reposts Sanborn's guys who accept invincible ignorance.
I've searched his site for invincible ignorance and not once has he denounced it but he did say in one article that it wouldn't apply to a certain case, implying it could otherwise.
-
I'm confused by the CMRI's position. They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary. Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position). So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable? The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent). So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally? I don't know. I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue. They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary. Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals. And interpreting dogma is not allowed. We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians. I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.
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.
-
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.
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
-
I've never heard him say he doesn't bieve that and he links to introibo's blog which calls people who reject invincible ignorance feeneyites and reposts Sanborn's guys who accept invincible ignorance.
I've searched his site for invincible ignorance and not once has he denounced it but he did say in one article that it wouldn't apply to a certain case, implying it could otherwise.
.
I see. So there's no breaking news here, just the satisfaction of your un-evidenced prejudice.
.
-
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
It says the the understanding, meaning, and sense must be retained.
-
Servus, that's a good quote from St. Augustine, thanks for the reminder.
-
It says the the understanding, meaning, and sense must be retained.
Yes of course, which is to say that there is every reason for a Pope to condemn "a separate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees" were such a thing to exist, not establish one.
-
Yes of course, which is to say that there is every reason for a Pope to condemn "a separate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees" were such a thing to exist, not establish one.
.
Is it? Seems every reason to have authoritative ways of interpreting conciliar teaching.
-
.
Is it? Seems every reason to have authoritative ways of interpreting conciliar teaching.
If it were your Council and after 18 years of it, would you send the whole mess out to a separate group so they can figure out what it is you actually said?
-
If it were your Council and after 18 years of it, would you send the whole mess out to a separate group so they can figure out what it is you actually said?
Intuition doesn't seem like the right rule by which to judge.
.
A better question is: if the Church intends conciliar decrees to only ever have a strict literal sense ('the way the words read once and for all', as it is often affectionately put), why then, when given the opportunity to explain how she must be understood (the Vatican I passage you quoted), does she not say so?
-
Intuition doesn't seem like the right rule by which to judge.
.
A better question is: if the Church intends conciliar decrees to only ever have a strict literal sense ('the way the words read once and for all', as it is often affectionately put), why then, when given the opportunity to explain how she must be understood (the Vatican I passage you quoted), does she not say so?
But she does say so, she says they are to be understood "as once declared," not understood the way "a separate congregation interprets them."
-
It says the meaning once declared is to be maintained. It does not say that the literal or plain meaning of a given declaration is to be understood literally.
-
It says the meaning once declared is to be maintained. It does not say that the literal or plain meaning of a given declaration is to be understood literally.
Let me rephrase: Vatican I does not say that the plain/literal meaning of a given conciliar decree is in fact the correct or complete meaning of a given conciliar decree.
.
It simply says that whatever meaning the Church declares is the meaning to be retained.
-
Let me rephrase: Vatican I does not say that the plain/literal meaning of a given conciliar decree is in fact the correct or complete meaning of a given conciliar decree.
.
It simply says that whatever meaning the Church declares is the meaning to be retained.
Yeah, I didn't see "plain" or "literal" in the translation posted by Stubborn. But I think he's pinning his understanding on the "once" in "once declared." However, that would mean even the Church Herself couldn't revisit and clarify texts she "once declared," which would be a bit odd.
-
It says the meaning once declared is to be maintained. It does not say that the literal or plain meaning of a given declaration is to be understood literally.
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.
-
Yeah, I didn't see "plain" or "literal" in the translation posted by Stubborn. But I think he's pinning his understanding on the "once" in "once declared." However, that would mean even the Church Herself couldn't revisit and clarify texts she "once declared," which would be a bit odd.
It would not mean that the Church could not revisit defined dogmas, after all, the dogma EENS was declared 3 times. Each time the meaning was the same as it was "once declared," i.e. declared the first time.
-
.
I see. So there's no breaking news here, just the satisfaction of your un-evidenced prejudice.
.
No need to be rude. I was just happy that Mr. Derksen hadn't fallen into this heresy.
-
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.
-
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.
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:
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:
“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.
-
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.
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Intuition doesn't seem like the right rule by which to judge.
.
A better question is: if the Church intends conciliar decrees to only ever have a strict literal sense ('the way the words read once and for all', as it is often affectionately put), why then, when given the opportunity to explain how she must be understood (the Vatican I passage you quoted), does she not say so?
If we are not bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, traditionalists don't have a leg to stand on. John XXIII approved of the theologians who reinterpreted tradition and if we are permitted to interpret dogmas, then what problem do we have with J23 to begin with? Also, interpreting tradition (dogma), falsifies Paul's admonition ("if we or an angel..."). The Catholic faith would be reduced to whatever the pope approves of. And Vatican I's statements concerning interpretation are themselves superfluous. Which is exactly what you have in the Novus Ordo sect.
Interpretation can also have the meaning of applying doctrinal decrees/canons to the disciplinary laws/policies of the Church. That kind of interpretation doesn't give any new meaning to the original decrees/canons. And a call for interpretation is not itself an infallible statement.
-
Let me rephrase: Vatican I does not say that the plain/literal meaning of a given conciliar decree is in fact the correct or complete meaning of a given conciliar decree.
.
It simply says that whatever meaning the Church declares is the meaning to be retained.
It would be ridiculous to define something in such a way that it needed to be interpreted. The pope can rewrite the statement in such a way that the literal meaning of the statement would be the correct meaning BEFORE promulgation. What would be the purpose of defining a dogma that would need to be explained by theologians and not simply understood by the target audience (bishops and priests).
-
If we are not bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, traditionalists don't have a leg to stand on. John XXIII approved of the theologians who reinterpreted tradition and if we are permitted to interpret dogmas, then what problem do we have with J23 to begin with? Also, interpreting tradition (dogma), falsifies Paul's admonition ("if we or an angel..."). The Catholic faith would be reduced to whatever the pope approves of. And Vatican I's statements concerning interpretation are themselves superfluous. Which is exactly what you have in the Novus Ordo sect.
.
.
I must not catch your meaning. If the literal or plain meaning of a given conciliar entry is the exclusively true and complete meaning, then is it not exactly the case that the faith is reduced to whatever a pope approves of?
.
-
It would not mean that the Church could not revisit defined dogmas, after all, the dogma EENS was declared 3 times. Each time the meaning was the same as it was "once declared," i.e. declared the first time.
The meaning was not the exact same with each declaration. HOWEVER, the later declarations NEVER contradicted the original declaration. They later declarations simply added more specific explanation of the meaning. But in the case of EENS, we are told by some theologians that the true intended meaning is the contradiction of the literal meaning of the original declarations. That cannot be.
-
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.
Theology manuals are not interpretations (or at least shouldn't be), they are meant to be explanations of terms. A dogmatic statement doesn't normally have the definition of theological terms contained within them. So in order to understand dogmas (not interpret!), we need to know the definitions of the terms and any other theological background information that gives context to what meaning is intended by these terms. And sometimes this includes information on the theological meaning of certain phrases and grammar, etc. That is not interpretation.
-
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.
I admit I made a mistake in believing there was no such a separate congregation or no interpretation done by them, but I was not mistaken in saying Trent did not teach clearly, it did. The separate congregation that the pope established was charged with promulgating and interpreting the council yes, but any doubt or difficulty was to be referred directly to the pope, so it's not as though they had free reign to interpret it however they saw fit.
As such, their interpretations maintain the same meanings as those once declared. Which is to say what the dogmas say today, mean the same thing they meant in 1564, and have no other meanings other than what they say. IOW, all interpretations have been completed, Roma locuta; causa finita est.
I apologize because the way I read your post was that dogmas can be, or are to be interpreted, or interpreted so as to have different meanings depending upon who and how one interprets them.
What so many refuse to believe is that many (not all) of the theology manuals of the previous few centuries do in fact *blatantly* abandon the meaning of defined dogma, presumably "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
-
.
I must not catch your meaning. If the literal or plain meaning of a given conciliar entry is the exclusively true and complete meaning, then is it not exactly the case that the faith is reduced to whatever a pope approves of?
.
My understanding of your point is that theologians are the authoritative interpreters of Church docuмents and that neither they nor the pope are bound by any other rule of faith than whatever the pope approves. But St Paul, Vatican I, Pope Paul IV, and many others say that there is a rule of faith that transcends the decisions of the man who claims to be pope. And it was that rule of faith by which sedes judged the Novus Ordo "popes" to be imposters. If there isn't a rule of faith that both the pope and the theologians are bound by, then Vatican 2 is an acceptable development of Church doctrine. If there is a rule of faith that both popes and theologians are bound by then so-called Feeneyites can't be faulted for comparing the teaching of theologians to the literal meaning of Church dogmas and objecting when they find contradictions.
-
No need to be rude. I was just happy that Mr. Derksen hadn't fallen into this heresy.
Yeah, and that's a separate discussion whether "Rewarder God" theory (the other position that rejects the necessity of explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity) is heresy. I hold that it clearly is heretical, objectively speaking, but, alas, the Church has not explicitly condemned it, so that even St. Alphponsus made the error of calling it "less probable" (out of deference to DeLugo, whom he revered excessively IMO). No, "Rewarder God" theory is heresy. It's contrary to the unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the entire Church for the first 1500 years. If this is not an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as an infallible teaching of the OUM.
-
I'll get back to this later when I have more time after work, but ... this argument about how the Church clarifies and makes more explicit things that were Revealed and always at least implicitly believed vs. that the Church can refine dogma, this is precisely the dispute between the Catholics and the Modernists.
No, the Church cannot and does not come up with a better "tweaked" understanding of prior dogmatic definitions.
Yes, the Church can condemn mis-interpretations of a dogma that are not consistent with the mind of the Church at the time of the dogmatic definition.
Yes, the Church can add clarification (make even MORE explicit) a prior dogmatic definition with additional (more precise) definition ... to reject false "distinctions" that may have been applied to prior dogmatic definitions.
-
.
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.
.
Splitting hairs for nothing.
There can be no meaning maintained unless something is first declared. "As declared" or "once declared" both have the same meaning.
Example:
The pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, this is the dogma on papal infallibility (I did not quote the whole dogma). That is what V1 declared, but not exactly as declared. But the meaning between the two is maintained.
Here is the dogma exactly "as declared" or "once declared:"
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."
No matter how one puts it, as long as they say that the dogma on papal infallibility states that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, one maintains the meaning of what was once declared.
Now whoever adds to or subtract anything at all from this dogma, is guilty of no longer maintaining it's meaning, presumably - "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
A fine example of not maintaining the meaning of the dogma of papal infallibility by adding to what was once declared, is Fr. Fenton, who adds to the dogma by granting the pope another kind of infallibility not taught at V1 which is "distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience."
^^This does not maintain the meaning of what was once declared.
-
My understanding of your point is that theologians are the authoritative interpreters of Church docuмents and that neither they nor the pope are bound by any other rule of faith than whatever the pope approves. But St Paul, Vatican I, Pope Paul IV, and many others say that there is a rule of faith that transcends the decisions of the man who claims to be pope. And it was that rule of faith by which sedes judged the Novus Ordo "popes" to be imposters. If there isn't a rule of faith that both the pope and the theologians are bound by, then Vatican 2 is an acceptable development of Church doctrine. If there is a rule of faith that both popes and theologians are bound by then so-called Feeneyites can't be faulted for comparing the teaching of theologians to the literal meaning of Church dogmas and objecting when they find contradictions.
.
My point was much narrower than that; I was simply pointing out that the Vatican I excerpt provided by Stubborn does not support his claim that the dogmatic declarations of ecuмenical councils are to only be understood according to whatever their literal or plain meaning is. I was not even arguing that the idea was wrong (although I think it is), I was merely arguing that the idea is not supported by Vatican I.
.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying about the rule of faith. The rule of faith (the term itself, I mean) is a guide for right belief, and it is the believing Church in particular who is subject to it. The teaching Church, qua teaching Church, does not have a rule of faith-- it, instead, is protected by infallibility as long as their is a living pope.
-
.
My point was much narrower than that; I was simply pointing out that the Vatican I excerpt provided by Stubborn does not support his claim that the dogmatic declarations of ecuмenical councils are to only be understood according to whatever their literal or plain meaning is. I was not even arguing that the idea was wrong (although I think it is), I was merely arguing that the idea is not supported by Vatican I.
.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying about the rule of faith. The rule of faith (the term itself, I mean) is a guide for right belief, and it is the believing Church in particular who is subject to it. The teaching Church, qua teaching Church, does not have a rule of faith-- it, instead, is protected by infallibility as long as their is a living pope.
Well I know you are not trying to say that the teaching Church is not part of the believing Church, right? So if the pope and the theologians are also part of the believing Church then they are likewise bound by the rule of faith. That's how we can reject a papal claimant. He isn't part of the teaching Church because he isn't part of the believing Church. A non-believer is not protected by infallibility even if he falsely claims to be part of the teaching Church. We can compare what papal claimants and theologians are teaching to the rule of faith which has been clearly taught by true popes and we can see if it contradicts anything we already know to be part of the deposit of the faith. If it does, and the claimant makes it clear that he is rejecting what he knows to be the Church's doctrine, then we must conclude that he is not part of the believing Church and therefore neither is he part of the teaching Church. But even if it is not clear that someone is knowingly rejecting Church doctrine, there is no obligation to accept obvious contradictions of the rule of faith. Infallibility doesn't extend to every statement issued by a member of the hierarchy/clergy. If something appears to contradict a dogma, the onus is on the person making the statement to explain how it doesn't contradict dogma. This isn't a case of competing interpretations. It's a matter of accepting dogmas at face value. In every controversial case, the interpretations always contradict the literal meaning of the dogma. If they didn't, there would be no controversy.
-
Well I know you are not trying to say that the teaching Church is not part of the believing Church, right? So if the pope and the theologians are also part of the believing Church then they are likewise bound by the rule of faith. That's how we can reject a papal claimant. He isn't part of the teaching Church because he isn't part of the believing Church. A non-believer is not protected by infallibility even if he falsely claims to be part of the teaching Church. We can compare what papal claimants and theologians are teaching to the rule of faith which has been clearly taught by true popes and we can see if it contradicts anything we already know to be part of the deposit of the faith. If it does, and the claimant makes it clear that he is rejecting what he knows to be the Church's doctrine, then we must conclude that he is not part of the believing Church and therefore neither is he part of the teaching Church.
.
I agree with all this.
.
But even if it is not clear that someone is knowingly rejecting Church doctrine, there is no obligation to accept obvious contradictions of the rule of faith. Infallibility doesn't extend to every statement issued by a member of the hierarchy/clergy. If something appears to contradict a dogma, the onus is on the person making the statement to explain how it doesn't contradict dogma. This isn't a case of competing interpretations. It's a matter of accepting dogmas at face value. In every controversial case, the interpretations always contradict the literal meaning of the dogma. If they didn't, there would be no controversy.
.
I don't agree with all of this.
-
Great. That's a step in the right direction. He does stop a bit short of affirming, however, that he believes in that position, or believes that the "Rewarder God" theory is unacceptable and untenable. But not a few Traditional Catholics hold that you're basically a "Feeneyite heretic" if you say that infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. cannot be saved.
Introibo blog called me a “feeneyite heretic” when I told him invincible ignorance wouldn’t apply to those in false sects
-
From Stubborn:
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.
This is exactly like the alien/evolution question. As Fr. Ripperger said in his talk, formation is key. The formation given to people impacts their ability to judge the validity of other controversies. People develop intellectual habits which affect their judgments and reasoning process. If you introduce something dissonant to these habits, people can judge it as false.
As time passes and people are formed by evolved doctrine, they become less able to detect falsities. That’s why so many people believe in religious liberty, evolution, aliens and BOD in my opinion.
-
Great. That's a step in the right direction. He does stop a bit short of affirming, however, that he believes in that position, or believes that the "Rewarder God" theory is unacceptable and untenable. But not a few Traditional Catholics hold that you're basically a "Feeneyite heretic" if you say that infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. cannot be saved.
I’m not gonna dig it up but several years ago I asked him about this and I remember him saying he can’t condemn Fr Cekadas position as heretical but that he does believe it’s incorrect. Posting this because I saw multiple people ask about it on this thread
-
From Stubborn:
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.
This is exactly like the alien/evolution question. As Fr. Ripperger said in his talk, formation is key. The formation given to people impacts their ability to judge the validity of other controversies. People develop intellectual habits which affect their judgments and reasoning process. If you introduce something dissonant to these habits, people can judge it as false.
As time passes and people are formed by evolved doctrine, they become less able to detect falsities. That’s why so many people believe in religious liberty, evolution, aliens and BOD in my opinion.
Layman ripperger.