It would be abnormal to not assume that a theologian such as Pohle would risk his reputation by inventing something for other clergy to practice ...

Agreed.  But I'll assume that you didn't intend that "not".  What was at issue is your lie that the Holy Office promoted that opinion when it was just Pohle and some "other loser".  You still haven't admitted your lie.  Instead you put the burden of proof on me to prove that the Holy Office did not teach what you claim.  You are the one who claimed that the Holy Office did, so YOU prove it.

NOR is the Holy Office infallible in any way.

Laudislaus it would appear that this argument is not about the proper interpretation of extra ecclesia nullus salus but rather the church teaching of indefectibility.  When can you date when all theologians, schools of thought, adopted the Pelagian heresy?

What are you talking about?  Even right up until Vatican II, Msgr. Fenton declared that it was still MAJORITY belief among theologians that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  Since Vatican II, of course, I'm sure that's completely out the window, as I would guess that 98% of Novus Ordo "theologians" would be minority opinion = Pelagians.

You're attempting to make up a principle that doesn't exist.

For 1600 years the "Majority Opinion" was taught and believed by everywhere and by all; if that doesn't make it part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then I don't know what does.

But here's your epic fail.

EITHER the Majority Opinion is true OR the Minority Opinion is true.  If the minority opinion is true (i.e. not an error), then the Church tolerated the erroneous majority opinion for, say, 1950 years (as it was still widely held in the 1950s).  So then the Church failed on your made-up "passive infallibility" there.

THIS DOES NOT EXIST.  There are simply things that the Church CHOOSES not to pass judgment on for one reason or another.  There have been MANY such disputes on which the Church has decided not to pass judgment, perhaps the most famous of which involves the Dominicans vs. Jesuits on grace and free will.  In fact, the Dominicans / Thomists rightly accused the Dominicans / Jesuits of (at least a very mild form of) Pelagianism.  And it was application of this incipient Jesuit Pelagianism that eventually led to the full-blown Pelagianism and rejection of EENS that we see today.  Your yourself are a (willing) victim of this.  Jesuits accused the Thomists of being Calvinists.  But the Church decided NOT to intervene at that time.  IMO this was a huge mistake.  But God allowed it because it would set in motion a series of developments that would lead to this modern-day testing of the faith and sifting of the faithful.  Be very afraid, Nado, lest you be among those sifted out.


 

Quote from: Ladislaus

You're attempting to make up a principle that doesn't exist.

For 1600 years the "Majority Opinion" was taught and believed by everywhere and by all; if that doesn't make it part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then I don't know what does.

But here's your epic fail.

EITHER the Majority Opinion is true OR the Minority Opinion is true.  If the minority opinion is true (i.e. not an error), then the Church tolerated the erroneous majority opinion for, say, 1950 years (as it was still widely held in the 1950s).  So then the Church failed on your made-up "passive infallibility" there.

THIS DOES NOT EXIST.  There are simply things that the Church CHOOSES not to pass judgment on for one reason or another.  There have been MANY such disputes on which the Church has decided not to pass judgment, perhaps the most famous of which involves the Dominicans vs. Jesuits on grace and free will.  In fact, the Dominicans / Thomists rightly accused the Dominicans / Jesuits of (at least a very mild form of) Pelagianism.  And it was application of this incipient Jesuit Pelagianism that eventually led to the full-blown Pelagianism and rejection of EENS that we see today.  Your yourself are a (willing) victim of this.  Jesuits accused the Thomists of being Calvinists.  But the Church decided NOT to intervene at that time.  IMO this was a huge mistake.  But God allowed it because it would set in motion a series of developments that would lead to this modern-day testing of the faith and sifting of the faithful.  Be very afraid, Nado, lest you be among those sifted out.


 

First of all, you need to make up you mind whether you want to respond to me or not. You keep saying you are won't but don't stick with it. I personally don't care either way.

What you Feeneyites get wrong big-time is that when something is taught publicly for hundreds of years to the public (not just among theologians), and you can't find anything which directly and explicitly says that something is against dogma....then it is not. You are simply in denial over this irrefutable historical fact because you don't understand what "holy" means as far as the divine Catholic Church goes.

Such is the typical reasoning rambling of a non-Catholic.

You know, the strongest argument the BoDers have is that all these theologians since St. Thomas believed in BoD; they use the argument from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Yet they ignore and refuse to answer the objection that for the first 1600 years of Church history, every Catholic everywhere taught and/or believed that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  But it's OK for some Jesuit to come along in the 15th century (hmmm, about the same time Protestantism started up) and begin questioning what clearly is a teaching of the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

At the end of the day, they attribute to the Magisterium that which they want to believe but then ignore things from the Magisterium that they don't want to believe.  They are not honest.  They find EENS unpalatable and so they line up all the evidence they think supports their position and ignore the evidence that doesn't.

That's why they can outrageously claim that there's universal consensus from the Church Fathers on BoD.  If you look at the evidence, there's one or two at the most in favor but 8 or 9 against it.  But that's suddenly "universal consensus" in FAVOR ... because in their minds the Fathers who oppose it simply don't exist.

Just a few days ago you said 1949 was the date things started to get bad, now you are going back a few more generations. Ladislaus said it was the 1600's!

Cantarella knows that things didn't START to get bad in 1949; she simply pointed that out as a watershed moment when this aberrant teaching gave the appearance of having made it into the Magisterium.  1949 is the reason that most Sedevacantists are dogmatic Pelagians.

And yet again you dodge the simply question of how the Church could have "tolerated" the erroneous (according to you) majority opinion for nearly 1600 years or how that isn't part of the infallible ordinary universal magisterium (something that's actually real vs. your "passive infallibility").

Quote from: Ladislaus

Nado's fake "passive infallibility" argument again.

I have about 6 quotes from imprimatured Catholic works that I already published here, and they range from the early 19th to the 20th century, all by different authors.

Not surprising the Ladislaus is arrogant enough to call the teaching fake.

What you are calling "passive infallibility" is fake.  It has nothing to do with what those authors are talking about.

Quote from: Ladislaus

You still have addressed exactly NONE of my objections.  You just keep saying the same thing over and over again like a broken record.  You are indeed a bad-willed heretic.

Now I have to say what I just said to Cant. Are you a liar, have a horrible memory, or a terrible comprehension?  I sure have addressed your objections. Some time ago I have even challenged any of you Feeneyite heretics to a one-on-one and nobody accepted the challenge, but you still seem to want to dabble in conversation without the commitment. Very telling.

I've re-posted the same objection to your "passive infallibility" concept at least 4 or 5 times now and you continue to ignore it.  You likewise ignored Nishant's posts.  You have addressed nothing.