Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.
See, this comment here exposes the malicious liar ... as consistent with his pattern on other issues.
He simply declares that I have not addressed the issue of the OP when the post to which he was responding thoroughly refuted it. I spend several paragraphs laying out the argument, and he simply lies that I have not addressed the issues, issuing a gratuitous one-liner. If he wants to rebut my points, then he's perfectly entitled to try. But he's not entitled to lie his ass off and claim I had not addressed the OP.
I'll repeat it here again, to expose his lie, but he'll ignore it, unable to rebut the issue, and then restate his claim. When people engage in this behavior is when they expose themselves as pertinacious liars.
I addressed the OP rather clearly, and you have no refutation.
St. Alphonsus cites two reasons he mistakenly concludes BoD (which he defines in contradiction to Trent and to another docuмent from Innocent III) is
de fide.
With regard to Trent ...
"Feeneyites" believe that there can be justification by votum. Explain how this contradicts Trent.Second point of St. Alphonsus.
de presbytero non baptizato is a docuмent of disputed authenticity and origin, is merely a letter to a Bishop, not a teaching to the Universal Church, and whoever wrote it (Innocent II or Innocent III? ... unknown) cites the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, except that he's materially mistaken regarding their opinions and is not using his own (papal) teaching authority, typically expressed by the formula, by the authority of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. So, last time I checked neither Augustine nor Ambrose had Magisterial authority. St. Alphonsus himself runs afoul of another letter from Innocent III, since the latter declares that the non-baptized Jew would go straight to Heaven without delay. So if the first letter made BoD
de fide, then the second letter condemns his own thesis that temporal punishment due to sin remains after BoD as heretical. And it's also heretical on the grounds that Trent taugth that 1) there can be no initial justification without rebirth and then 2) defines rebirth as putting the soul into a state in which no guilty of nor punishment due to sin remains, so that one who dies in that state would go directly to Heaven. So not only is St. Alphonsus mistaken regarding the authority of that letter, but if he were correct, then his own explanation of BoD would be heretical, though it's heretical anyway due to contradicting Trent.
Finally, in Fr. Cekada's survey of theologians, St. Alphonsus was in the minority (of the 27 theologians who even treated of it), the majority of them disagree with St. Alphonsus' assessment of the theological note of BoD, and recall that St. Alphonsus was writing before Vatican I had clarified the notes of papal infallibility. There's no way that a letter (of disputed authorship) written to a single bishop, not the Universal Church, appealing to Augustine and Ambrose, rather than teaching from the See, and thereby failing to meet even a single note of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I ... could essentially be tantamount to a solemn definition.
So your OP is refuted thoroughly again, but you're a dishonest liar and will just claim it hadn't been and simply reiterate your lie.
Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 11267 times)