This subject was brought up several times in recent discussions, and was conveniently avoided by the Feeneyites, so I'm starting a new thread.

As we all know, the Feeneyites are well known for their defense of the dogma of EENS. However, this thread is about another dogma that should be equally defended called "infallibility of the Church", which guarantees that the Church cannot teach error. "The Catechism Explained" (1899) clearly explains the origins of this dogma on page 237:

Infallibility of the Church
"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."

It is well-known that most people in this sub-forum are very open to admitting that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and/or the doctrine on implicit desire (soul of the Church) are heresies. Since baptism of desire and blood have been openly taught for 20 centuries, and the soul of the church being found in Catholic books for the last 4 centuries, it was brought up that, how can these possibly be heresy given that the dogma of infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES that the Church cannot teach error?

No one responded except Ladislaus, who said, [/i]"Yes, the Church can and has often remained silent about various errors that were floating around"

Looking at some prime examples of errors that emerged throughout the history of the Church, we see the following:

1. It took the Church about 6 years to call a General Council to condemn Arius after he began teaching heresy. This heresy affected a majority of the Church.

2. It took the Church about 25 years to call a General Council to condemn Luther and other Protestants after the Protestant revolt began.

3. It took the Church about 3 1/2 years to excommunicate Father Feeney after he began teaching error.

In each of these cases, Catholic books show the Church began reacting immediately, but it took years to actually bring about the condemnations. Regardless, even in a worst-case scenario such as the Protestant revolt, we can see it took the Church at most about 25 years to call a Council for major heresy that affected a large majority of the Church.

So not only is Ladislaus' comment absolutely false, but the main question for all the Feeneyites in this forum is again, HOW can the doctrines on baptism of desire and blood, and/or doctrine on the soul of the Church be heresy when they have been taught for 20 CENTURIES (bod/bob) and 4 CENTURIES (soul of the church)? The DOGMA of the infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach heresy, and ALL Catholics must believe this dogma.

Let's be very clear here: If the Feeneyites do not have a solid answer to this question, they are DIRECTLY defying a DOGMA of the Church that all Catholics must believe. This means their movement is based on heresy and this sub-forum should immediately be shut down as non-Catholic. If you want to reply with insults, it only confirms what I am saying here all the more, so we are all expecting you to truly defend your position on this.

Waiting....  

This subject was brought up several times in recent discussions, and was conveniently avoided by the Feeneyites, so I'm starting a new thread.

As we all know, the Feeneyites are well known for their defense of the dogma of EENS. However, this thread is about another dogma that should be equally defended called "infallibility of the Church", which guarantees that the Church cannot teach error. "The Catechism Explained" (1899) clearly explains the origins of this dogma on page 237:

Infallibility of the Church
"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."

It is well-known that most people in this sub-forum are very open to admitting that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and/or the doctrine on implicit desire (soul of the Church) are heresies. Since baptism of desire and blood have been openly taught for 20 centuries, and the soul of the church being found in Catholic books for the last 4 centuries, it was brought up that, how can these possibly be heresy given that the dogma of infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES that the Church cannot teach error?

No one responded except Ladislaus, who said, [/i]"Yes, the Church can and has often remained silent about various errors that were floating around"

Looking at some prime examples of errors that emerged throughout the history of the Church, we see the following:

1. It took the Church about 6 years to call a General Council to condemn Arius after he began teaching heresy. This heresy affected a majority of the Church.

2. It took the Church about 25 years to call a General Council to condemn Luther and other Protestants after the Protestant revolt began.

3. It took the Church about 3 1/2 years to excommunicate Father Feeney after he began teaching error.

In each of these cases, Catholic books show the Church began reacting immediately, but it took years to actually bring about the condemnations. Regardless, even in a worst-case scenario such as the Protestant revolt, we can see it took the Church at most about 25 years to call a Council for major heresy that affected a large majority of the Church.

So not only is Ladislaus' comment absolutely false, but the main question for all the Feeneyites in this forum is again, HOW can the doctrines on baptism of desire and blood, and/or doctrine on the soul of the Church be heresy when they have been taught for 20 CENTURIES (bod/bob) and 4 CENTURIES (soul of the church)? The DOGMA of the infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach heresy, and ALL Catholics must believe this dogma.

Let's be very clear here: If the Feeneyites do not have a solid answer to this question, they are DIRECTLY defying a DOGMA of the Church that all Catholics must believe. This means their movement is based on heresy and this sub-forum should immediately be shut down as non-Catholic. If you want to reply with insults, it only confirms what I am saying here all the more, so we are all expecting you to truly defend your position on this.

Waiting....  

That God permits heresy is without doubt a reality.  When God chooses to crush it is His business.  Consider the heresy of modernism, long standing as a thorn in the side of the Church arguably for a couple hundred years.  Until the consecration of Russia, modernism will not see its demise.  So, with modernism STILL afoot, the synthesis of all heresies, Ladislaus's comment is obviously not false.  

Oh, and   back at ya.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: saintbosco13

This subject was brought up several times in recent discussions, and was conveniently avoided by the Feeneyites, so I'm starting a new thread.

As we all know, the Feeneyites are well known for their defense of the dogma of EENS. However, this thread is about another dogma that should be equally defended called "infallibility of the Church", which guarantees that the Church cannot teach error. "The Catechism Explained" (1899) clearly explains the origins of this dogma on page 237:

Infallibility of the Church
"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."

It is well-known that most people in this sub-forum are very open to admitting that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and/or the doctrine on implicit desire (soul of the Church) are heresies. Since baptism of desire and blood have been openly taught for 20 centuries, and the soul of the church being found in Catholic books for the last 4 centuries, it was brought up that, how can these possibly be heresy given that the dogma of infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES that the Church cannot teach error?

No one responded except Ladislaus, who said, [/i]"Yes, the Church can and has often remained silent about various errors that were floating around"

Looking at some prime examples of errors that emerged throughout the history of the Church, we see the following:

1. It took the Church about 6 years to call a General Council to condemn Arius after he began teaching heresy. This heresy affected a majority of the Church.

2. It took the Church about 25 years to call a General Council to condemn Luther and other Protestants after the Protestant revolt began.

3. It took the Church about 3 1/2 years to excommunicate Father Feeney after he began teaching error.

In each of these cases, Catholic books show the Church began reacting immediately, but it took years to actually bring about the condemnations. Regardless, even in a worst-case scenario such as the Protestant revolt, we can see it took the Church at most about 25 years to call a Council for major heresy that affected a large majority of the Church.

So not only is Ladislaus' comment absolutely false, but the main question for all the Feeneyites in this forum is again, HOW can the doctrines on baptism of desire and blood, and/or doctrine on the soul of the Church be heresy when they have been taught for 20 CENTURIES (bod/bob) and 4 CENTURIES (soul of the church)? The DOGMA of the infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach heresy, and ALL Catholics must believe this dogma.

Let's be very clear here: If the Feeneyites do not have a solid answer to this question, they are DIRECTLY defying a DOGMA of the Church that all Catholics must believe. This means their movement is based on heresy and this sub-forum should immediately be shut down as non-Catholic. If you want to reply with insults, it only confirms what I am saying here all the more, so we are all expecting you to truly defend your position on this.

Waiting....  

That God permits heresy is without doubt a reality.  When God chooses to crush it is His business.  Consider the heresy of modernism, long standing as a thorn in the side of the Church arguably for a couple hundred years.  Until the consecration of Russia, modernism will not see its demise.  So, with modernism STILL afoot, the synthesis of all heresies, Ladislaus's comment is obviously not false.  

Oh, and   back at ya.

You just make up stuff as you go along. Where do you get the modernism was around for a couple of hundred years? It was barely around for 10 years by the time St. Pius X noticed it and condemned it. Liberalism was condemned quickly, and modernism was an outgrowth of that, and when it was noticed to have developed its own distinctive character apart form Liberalism, it was quickly condemned.

Good job sb13.

Sorry bub, modernism was raging before Pius X, he just inherited it and possibly even named it. In any event, it has been around a long time.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: saintbosco13

This subject was brought up several times in recent discussions, and was conveniently avoided by the Feeneyites, so I'm starting a new thread.

As we all know, the Feeneyites are well known for their defense of the dogma of EENS. However, this thread is about another dogma that should be equally defended called "infallibility of the Church", which guarantees that the Church cannot teach error. "The Catechism Explained" (1899) clearly explains the origins of this dogma on page 237:

Infallibility of the Church
"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."

It is well-known that most people in this sub-forum are very open to admitting that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and/or the doctrine on implicit desire (soul of the Church) are heresies. Since baptism of desire and blood have been openly taught for 20 centuries, and the soul of the church being found in Catholic books for the last 4 centuries, it was brought up that, how can these possibly be heresy given that the dogma of infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES that the Church cannot teach error?

No one responded except Ladislaus, who said, [/i]"Yes, the Church can and has often remained silent about various errors that were floating around"

Looking at some prime examples of errors that emerged throughout the history of the Church, we see the following:

1. It took the Church about 6 years to call a General Council to condemn Arius after he began teaching heresy. This heresy affected a majority of the Church.

2. It took the Church about 25 years to call a General Council to condemn Luther and other Protestants after the Protestant revolt began.

3. It took the Church about 3 1/2 years to excommunicate Father Feeney after he began teaching error.

In each of these cases, Catholic books show the Church began reacting immediately, but it took years to actually bring about the condemnations. Regardless, even in a worst-case scenario such as the Protestant revolt, we can see it took the Church at most about 25 years to call a Council for major heresy that affected a large majority of the Church.

So not only is Ladislaus' comment absolutely false, but the main question for all the Feeneyites in this forum is again, HOW can the doctrines on baptism of desire and blood, and/or doctrine on the soul of the Church be heresy when they have been taught for 20 CENTURIES (bod/bob) and 4 CENTURIES (soul of the church)? The DOGMA of the infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach heresy, and ALL Catholics must believe this dogma.

Let's be very clear here: If the Feeneyites do not have a solid answer to this question, they are DIRECTLY defying a DOGMA of the Church that all Catholics must believe. This means their movement is based on heresy and this sub-forum should immediately be shut down as non-Catholic. If you want to reply with insults, it only confirms what I am saying here all the more, so we are all expecting you to truly defend your position on this.

Waiting....  

That God permits heresy is without doubt a reality.  When God chooses to crush it is His business.  Consider the heresy of modernism, long standing as a thorn in the side of the Church arguably for a couple hundred years.  Until the consecration of Russia, modernism will not see its demise.  So, with modernism STILL afoot, the synthesis of all heresies, Ladislaus's comment is obviously not false.  

Oh, and   back at ya.

You just make up stuff as you go along. Where do you get the modernism was around for a couple of hundred years? It was barely around for 10 years by the time St. Pius X noticed it and condemned it. Liberalism was condemned quickly, and modernism was an outgrowth of that, and when it was noticed to have developed its own distinctive character apart form Liberalism, it was quickly condemned.

Good job sb13.

Sorry bub, modernism was raging before Pius X, he just inherited it and possibly even named it. In any event, it has been around a long time.

Quote something that supports your claim.

Naw.  I don't think so.  I've wasted enough words with you.  Go back and read page 11 on the other thread as well as the follow up.  When you answer Trent and its true interpretation, maybe I'll answer you. Trent makes bod impossible.  

Quote from: happenby

Naw.  I don't think so.  I've wasted enough words with you.  Go back and read page 11 on the other thread as well as the follow up.  When you answer Trent and its true interpretation, maybe I'll answer you. Trent makes bod impossible.  

The short of it is...you have no proof for your claim.  You failed.

You remain constantly on the defense providing no content for your argument, not to mention that you continue in error.  I cannot fail on this subject because I believe Baptism is necessary and there is no salvation outside the Church, both infallible Catholic teachings with anathemas attached for those who insist otherwise. Conversely, you believe there really IS salvation outside the Church, and that Baptism is not necessary.  And you say that my position failed?  That means you're saying the Church failed for teaching these doctrines. The twisted notions believed by bod'ers who say "Baptism isn't really necessary" and "the Church doesn't mean that no one at all is saved outside the Church, because it means that there IS salvation outside the Church, but... I'm just not calling it that," is an offshoot of that modernism/relativism haunting the Church today.

<sigh> No rest for the weary.  May Russia receive its consecration to Our Lady soon!

When you're ready to consider the possibility that the Church's doctrines are firm, we can work together against growing modernism and laxity in Catholic minds as a result of bod.  Have a nice day, sir.  

No, you make counter doctrine with the words of men you think are infallible when they are not. Or, when they aren't saying what you think they are saying. Trent trumps them all when it comes to conflict.

Quote from: saintbosco13

This subject was brought up several times in recent discussions, and was conveniently avoided by the Feeneyites, so I'm starting a new thread.

As we all know, the Feeneyites are well known for their defense of the dogma of EENS. However, this thread is about another dogma that should be equally defended called "infallibility of the Church", which guarantees that the Church cannot teach error. "The Catechism Explained" (1899) clearly explains the origins of this dogma on page 237:

Infallibility of the Church
"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."

It is well-known that most people in this sub-forum are very open to admitting that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and/or the doctrine on implicit desire (soul of the Church) are heresies. Since baptism of desire and blood have been openly taught for 20 centuries, and the soul of the church being found in Catholic books for the last 4 centuries, it was brought up that, how can these possibly be heresy given that the dogma of infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES that the Church cannot teach error?

No one responded except Ladislaus, who said, [/i]"Yes, the Church can and has often remained silent about various errors that were floating around"

Looking at some prime examples of errors that emerged throughout the history of the Church, we see the following:

1. It took the Church about 6 years to call a General Council to condemn Arius after he began teaching heresy. This heresy affected a majority of the Church.

2. It took the Church about 25 years to call a General Council to condemn Luther and other Protestants after the Protestant revolt began.

3. It took the Church about 3 1/2 years to excommunicate Father Feeney after he began teaching error.

In each of these cases, Catholic books show the Church began reacting immediately, but it took years to actually bring about the condemnations. Regardless, even in a worst-case scenario such as the Protestant revolt, we can see it took the Church at most about 25 years to call a Council for major heresy that affected a large majority of the Church.

So not only is Ladislaus' comment absolutely false, but the main question for all the Feeneyites in this forum is again, HOW can the doctrines on baptism of desire and blood, and/or doctrine on the soul of the Church be heresy when they have been taught for 20 CENTURIES (bod/bob) and 4 CENTURIES (soul of the church)? The DOGMA of the infallibility of the Church GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach heresy, and ALL Catholics must believe this dogma.

Let's be very clear here: If the Feeneyites do not have a solid answer to this question, they are DIRECTLY defying a DOGMA of the Church that all Catholics must believe. This means their movement is based on heresy and this sub-forum should immediately be shut down as non-Catholic. If you want to reply with insults, it only confirms what I am saying here all the more, so we are all expecting you to truly defend your position on this.

Waiting....  

That God permits heresy is without doubt a reality.  When God chooses to crush it is His business.  Consider the heresy of modernism, long standing as a thorn in the side of the Church arguably for a couple hundred years.  Until the consecration of Russia, modernism will not see its demise.  So, with modernism STILL afoot, the synthesis of all heresies, Ladislaus's comment is obviously not false.  

Oh, and   back at ya.

First, modernism started around the time Pope St. Pius X became Pope, and he immediately and solemnly condemned it via his encyclical and oath against modernism.  So your argument is meaningless.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

No, you make counter doctrine with the words of men you think are infallible when they are not. Or, when they aren't saying what you think they are saying. Trent trumps them all when it comes to conflict.

I quoted the Catechism of the Council of Trent and it CLEARLY says that adults can be saved if dying by accident before baptism. YOU are not accepting what Christendom has accepted for 400 years without a peep of protest. That shows you are losing the Faith if you don't wake up right now and accept it.

Oh dear.  And you'll probably quote the Dutch catechism errors too.  

Oh dear, you probably will! But that catechism is not from under a true pope, so it means nothing. Try some other response.