He references Tuas libenter, ...

II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pius IX).
•
“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs
and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters
which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching
power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore,
by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to
belong to faith.”
Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal
decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as
theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).
•
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all
those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences,
in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their
writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention
should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept
and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also
necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining
to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and
also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and
constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,
so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine,
although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some
theological censure.”
Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684

Quote from: Stubborn

...IMO.

As I have stated before, your opinion and the change in my pocket buys me a cup of coffee, nothing more.

I do not care for your opinion, I am looking for something of substance to support your claims.

.....For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Histrionics

Quick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place.  You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it.  With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?

Again, notice that the 1917 Code speaks very specifically of Catechumens, which is perfectly in line with a Catholic understanding of BoD.

I've dealt with the 1917 Code before.  As such, a code of law, it's disciplinary and not doctrinal.  It's not defining anything.  So, in the context of burials, for pastoral reasons, it allows for the possibility that a catechumen might be saved via BoD; it's contrary to the earlier discipline of the Church.  So I have taken exception to the Dimonds who believe that even the limited, properly understood BoD, is heretical ... since the Church has always allowed the opinion.  In fact, I consider that view to be schismatic.  But, as per my previous post, the BoDer crusade isn't about the occasional catechumen who MIGHT be saved, but about undermining EENS.  Just as there's no guaranteed that ANYONE who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, so there's no guarantee that any catechumen who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, just that the Church leave it open as a possibility in the pastoral context.  There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD or that God would will any of His elect to be saved by this means when it's easily possible for Him to bring the Sacrament to any of His elect.  I see BoD as speculative theology for which there's no actual or practical need and for which there's no actual proof.

So, if you want to believe that some catechumen or other who died without Baptism (which probably happens once in a blue moon) MIGHT be saved via BoD, then more power to you.  But when people start talking about Great Thumb worshippers being saved via some distorted "BoD", that's when I have problems with you, and the Doctors of the Church are all ON MY SIDE on this matter, as is the Magisterium of the Church.  In fact, once you start extending salvation to non-Catholics, you've got all of Vatican II in a nutshell, and LoT and Ambrose, who hold the same ecclesiology as Vatican II, are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since they have nothing to stand on.

Yes I did notice that, and wasn't baiting you with the question as I was only referring to catechumens in light of your BOD formulation in the original post of this thread.  I don't know if dismissing it as simply a pastoral provision is sufficient insofar as it would seem to be an evil law (from your vantage point) as it's fanning the flame of doctrinal error at the very least.  How do you personally square this away, as it seems analagous to what you accuse (I believe quite rightly) those who reject the Church's universal laws of doing?

The confusion regarding Ven. Pius IX's Tuas Libenter arises from forgetting that there are two quite distinct quotes referring to two different aspects of doctrine. The first relates to "theological truths and conclusions" but not to dogma.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

The second relates to dogmas taught by the ordinary universal magisterium.

“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers did not get something wrong, and state that it was "certain," universally for hundreds of years. If you think this happened, please cite your evidence.

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada

"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link.  It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.

Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's  four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles.

There is also an interesting exchange between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

Thank you for posting this, I found these links very helpful !

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada

"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link.  It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.

Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's  four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles.

There is also an interesting exchange between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

Thank you for posting this, I found these links very helpful !

Edited to add:

I thought this quote from Fr Cekada worth noting in these 'wild west' times.

E.
*
Private Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements.
*
“I think the infallible pronouncements of the Church are all pretty clear.
I don’t need ‘interpretations’ or explanations from theologians. I just
take everything literally.”
•
Response:
Do it yourself interpretations and explanation of
texts are for Protestants, not Catholics. Theology is a science which
operates under the watchful eye of the Church, not a free for all for every Catholic with an English translation of Denziger. Like any
other science, theology operates according to recognized and objective criteria which experts use to arrive at the truth about various
propositions. So, if you are not trained in the science, you have no business coming up with your own interpretations for the pronouncements of the magisterium. At best, you’ll end up looking ignorant; at worst, you’ll end up a heretic.

Whoa, major copy/paste snafu, I tried to clean the quote up as best I could.

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.

Quote from: Stubborn

Have you read the Fr. Cekada link you posted?

Yes, I read the link, http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf,  and the follow-up exchange http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

I enjoyed them, and found them edifying.  

You, on the other hand, repulse me, your words are so contrary to the Catholic fabric that I wonder how I will ever manage to get the stains out.