CathInfo.com

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have not followed this thread closely but I'm supposing there is no one left that rejects the infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church on this forum now?

There is not an infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church. BOD/B have always been theological opinions only, not revealed dogmas. There is Catholic infallible teaching on "Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus" that may be undermined by the theological speculation on BOD/B though.

Again ...

Bowler, Cantrella, stubborn, Ladislaus, etc. appear to deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accept that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. They are quite wrong on both counts.

There are three distinctions that need to be made here:

1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, "pertains to Faith" it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they "relate to matters of Faith" - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.

2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as "certain", but one would not thereby be a heretic. You, bowler, and the other revolving door of characters seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case you cannot admit it while you are still under the influence of your self-made anti-BOD drug.

3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the "authentic" magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. "He who hears you, hears Me."

You are correct.  I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium.  Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.

What sources do you rely on in this assertion?  When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?