Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20

Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII  (Read 10393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2021, 03:18:50 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2021, 03:14:04 PM
It does nothing.  It means St Alphonsus (in this quote) was contrary to Trent, which all of you love to quote.  If you go bother reading Trent's entire chapter on justification, it explains VERY well, what is required.

St. Alphonsus being "contrary" to Trent - which came before him - means nothing?

Only because you refuse to face squarely what it means: a saint and doctor of the Church held a view that - according to you and Lad - denies a dogma of the faith, i.e. the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.

And despite that . . . he was not only canonized, but declared a "doctor" of the faith, of which there are very few.

But that won't make you blink if it requires you to take your eye off your Feeneyite ball, will it, Pax?

Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2021, 03:30:05 PM »

Quote
St. Alphonsus being "contrary" to Trent - which came before him - means nothing?
Look, dude, you have a reading comprehension problem, which is half the battle, when it comes to debating with you. 
.
You asked what does St Alphonsus' view DO to the view of necessity of the sacraments.  I responded:  "It does nothing", which grammatically refers to "the necessity of the sacraments".  In other words, Ladislaus'/Trent's view of the necessity of the sacraments DOES NOT CHANGE, just because St Alphonsus says something different.  A doctrinal council > a saint...all day, everyday and twice on sundays.
.

Quote
Only because you refuse to face squarely what it means: a saint and doctor of the Church held a view that - according to you and Lad - denies a dogma of the faith, i.e. the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
Yes, sometimes he 100% agreed with Trent, and sometimes he didn't.  He contradicted himself (or corrected himself).  A canonization does not mean the person is infallible, as no person is.
.

Quote
And despite that . . . he was not only canonized, but declared a "doctor" of the faith, of which there are very few.
The fact that you think this is some kind of important point, means you don't know what you're talking about.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2021, 03:45:28 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2021, 03:30:05 PM
Look, dude, you have a reading comprehension problem, which is half the battle, when it comes to debating with you.
.
You asked what does St Alphonsus' view DO to the view of necessity of the sacraments.  I responded:  "It does nothing", which grammatically refers to "the necessity of the sacraments".  
:)

Ok. Let's try it this way: what does the upshot of St. Alphonsus's view of an implicit BOD mean as to what he thought about the necessity of the sacraments?

Well, if he believed in implicit BOD - and there is no indication he didn't or that he retracted - then it means he did not believe in the necessity of the sacraments, which (according to you or Lad) requires either the reception of the sacrament or an explicit desire for the sacrament, of which one must be aware, a de fide doctrine.

It means either St. Alphonsus was a manifest heretic scattering heresy in his writings and teachings as bishop, a "saint and doctor" who denied de fide dogma of the Church which was solemnly defined before his heresy, or else you and Lad are wrong.

That may mean "nothing" to you - which is sad, very sad, either way.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2021, 03:47:01 PM »
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #84 on: April 19, 2021, 04:08:57 PM »

Quote
Ok. Let's try it this way: what does the upshot of St. Alphonsus's view of an implicit BOD mean as to what he thought about the necessity of the sacraments?
It means that in a few of his quotes, he contradicted St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent.  Therefore, he was wrong. 
.

Quote
Well, if he believed in implicit BOD - and there is no indication he didn't or that he retracted - then it means he did not believe in the necessity of the sacraments,
Yes, in reading these short, "sound bite" comments from St Alphonsus, it seems he contradicted Trent.  Except most intelligent people write VOLUMES on certain topics (salvation being a common, complex topic), so to give the proper benefit of the doubt to a doctor the Church, we must presume that St Alphonsus' views can't be summarized into 3 sentences. 
.

Quote
which (according to you or Lad) requires either the reception of the sacrament or an explicit desire for the sacrament, of which one must be aware, a de fide doctrine.
This has nothing to do with Ladislaus or I.  It has to do with what St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent clearly wrote.
.

Quote
It means either St. Alphonsus was a manifest heretic scattering heresy in his writings and teachings as bishop, a "saint and doctor" who denied de fide dogma of the Church which was solemnly defined before his heresy, or else you and Lad are wrong.
If you believe that the "sound bite" quote of St Alphonsus is correct, then you would agree with V2. 
.
I believe that 1) it isn't his full view or 2) he was simply wrong.  I believe in the consistent views handed down by St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent.
.
Either way, according to your "gotcha test", a Doctor of the Church is in error. 
3 Doctors + Trent vs 1 Doctor + V2.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
« previous next »