Really, the biggest problem with the dogmatic sedevacantists like Colin is the blurring together of all the theological notes, effectively turning every single utterance of every Pope in history into dogma.

I asked Colin a very simple question about who can and cannot be saved in another thread. So far no answer.

Yes, BoD is usually a smokescreen for EENS-denial.  I've only come across one or two notable exceptions, and they were a breath of fresh air compared to these.

@ colin

I admit, very openly, my ignorance of dogma, doctrine and canon and I will be happy if any one will correct me and teach me what is right. Therefore, my reply to your comments, that I truly appreciate, is the reply of a faithful ignorant who is fearful of error and who is trying, in good faith and without negligence, to make sense of all this crisis.

In short my reply is common sense applied to dogma.

The Catholic Church is the one to interpret her own dogmas. Not Fr. Feeney, not anyone on this forum, nor you or I.

i) who you refer to as doing the interpreting is not the Church, but individuals within the Church.
ii) I disagree. Who governs the Church cannot interpret the Church's dogmas because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and not by those men who governed it before them. The Church's governance can only teach dogmas, it cannot not interpret them.

That’s what people have told you here. Feeney ...

No. That is what a leftist and pro conciliar platform (wikipedia) shows.

“For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.”
Pope Pius IX

i) This is not dogma.
ii) I will obediently follow this teaching in all times other than when dogmas are challenged. When dogmas are challenged it is my duty as Catholic to protect the true Faith and, by state of necessity, disobey teachings that go against the True Faith.

Who do you think has defined the Catholic Faith over 2000 years? The governance of the Church.

An ignorant man's (me) simple answer would be that the Catholic Faith was defined by the governance of the Church, in obedience to the dogmas that were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

The governance therefore, cannot define doctrine that contravenes dogmas.

The governance is not above the Church itself. The authority of the governance, even the authority of the Holy Father, is derived from the Church itself and not viceversa because the Church embodies Christ. The governance of the Church, even our Pontiff, cannot teach ideologies that conflict with our Church, less he automatically falls out of communion with Christ.

A community member once rebuked me for complaining about our Church. He taught me that it is not our Church that is in error, today. It is the individuals who govern it who are in error. He reminded me, very eloquently, that the Church is a victim of its governance and to not conflate the two.

Its impossible for the Church’s governance to contradict her teachings. That’s the doctrine of indefectibility.

I disagree.
i) doctrine is not a dogma.
ii) doctrine is null at inception if created in conflict with dogma.
iii) that doctinre, therefore, applies to all that is not in conflict with dogma.

What’s even more simple is to not try to falsely and perilously rely upon your own understanding. Keep it simple: if the Church teaches it, you obey. Period.

I disagree because I am not disobeyong the Church. I am disobeying the governance of the Church.

This is the danger of the R&R position. They deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. They think they can resist and dissent from the teachings of Popes if it’s not ex cathedra pronouncements. They’re not going to listen Pius IX because his statement wasn’t infallible.

I too deny the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium when it conflicts dogma and this is why I am studying hundreds of poorly drafted and very ambiguous content of the pages of V2.

I am so afraid to offend God in interpreting His Will the wrong way that I do NOT listen blindly to what is taught by this community. However, I must admit, that with my own free will I find that 90% of what is being suggested is consistent with what the Church has taught through the millennia.

Yet, Pius IX is saying even if it’s not a dogma, your obligation is to believe it.

I disagree with Pius IX when the teachign conflicts with dogma.

@ Anyone

Please, anyone, correct me. If a dogma affirms that something black, than a later statemt that affirms that it is a shade of gray is heresy. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong.

No, you are not wrong.

One month visiting this community did teach me at least this ... :D Thank you to those who contributed with my Catholic education.

Tommaso, it is not my intention to insult Colin,

Opinions and expressions of what one belives to be facts whould never offend anyone.

The First Vatican Council.

This council was held specifically to tell us 1) what we are bound to believe, 2) define when the pope is *not* infallible and 3) define when the pope is infallible.

In short, per V1, we know the following:

The pope is infallible, i.e., he enjoys divine protection from error, when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. He is not divinely protected when he teaches new doctrines (heresies), even were he to teach them to the whole world.  

From the link, this is dogma, this is what we must believe:

1) Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

When the pope is not infallible:

2) For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
  
When the pope is infallible:

3) We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

The owner of this forum should attach the quoted text in the incipit. This would solve many conflicts ab origine.

The owner of this forum should attach the quoted text in the incipit. This would solve many conflicts ab origine.

I don't disagree, but I do not think it would matter to those who believe the teachings of recent theologians, are actually  teachings of the Church.

In your travels, always remember V1 defined exactly when the pope is infallible and when he is not. He is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, that's it.

"Papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty" as Fr. Wathen puts it. Everything he teaches, says or does outside of defining a doctrine ex cathedra, is when the pope is not infallible.

The battleground is ecclesiology:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/vatican-ii-ecclesiology-and-cmri-sspx-sspv-etc/

This thread really ought to be in the EENS subforum. The real question: is the Catholic faith necessary for salvation?

I apologize if I allowed my thread to touch on off topic matters, for the benefit of my personal instruction and I appreciate how topic disorder can waste time of visitiros who seek pertinent exchanges. But I was not aware of an EENS subforum. Which is it?

The real question: is the Catholic faith necessary for salvation?

It has been debated and dogmas have been referenced to that would confirm that Catholic Faith is a prerequisite for salvation. I don't understand your position. Are you in agreement or dissent?

An Eastern Schismatic is already baptized. Baptism of Desire doesn't even enter the equation.

This too has been discussed and agreed upon.

Is one prepared to include such a one among the Faithful? How can you?

The Church is a visible society with public profession of the same faith. If you were to include such individuals, who publicly espouse a different faith, and were to count them as Catholic, as one of the Faithful, the visible unity of faith is destroyed.

We cannot as a Catholic faithful is only he who conciously and willingly embraces all the teachings of the Catholic Faith.