Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD (Read 22216 times)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #75 on:** July 13, 2022, 11:25:08 PM »

It is that complexity associated with BOD that proves the error. Trent spoke clearly insofar as the laver of regeneration or the desire for it were immediately contextualized by the reference to John 3:5, yet the BOD advocates will ignore this context to push their error. Or, as you've indicated, they will emphasize some opinion of two Church Fathers (Ss. Ambrose and Augustine) that could be construed in favor of BOD while ignoring 99% of the other Fathers who explicitly taught the necessity of water baptism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #76 on:** July 14, 2022, 05:27:09 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 13, 2022, 05:55:17 PM

It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?

It's illogical.

Ok, I'm glad someone else is reading this teaching with the same understanding.

And that's what I am after, I'm trying to find out why or how others have a completely different understanding. As you say, it's illogical.

Stubborn · « **Reply #77 on:** July 14, 2022, 05:47:01 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 06:36:00 PM

Cathechisms are not, by and in themselves, the OUM. But they can express the OUM under certain conditions, and I think their discussion of BOD qualifies. I agree, for example, with this:

"Why not the NO Catechism?" Why not when it expresses the OUM?

Yes, even the NO catechism can have magisterial teachings within it, but because they are not by and in themselves the OUM, they can also contain teachings contrary to OUM. The thing is, this is denied even when faced with contrary or conflicting OUM teachings.

Stubborn · « **Reply #78 on:** July 14, 2022, 05:54:58 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 06:39:10 PM

Not clear on what you're saying there.

I'm not calling you a heretic or saying I do not think it permissible to take a "Feeneyite" view. As I said, I once held it. But I now think BOD to be an expression of the OUM. It's fine to me if we differ.

And I'm not calling you a heretic or anything either, all I am trying to find out is how one can read Trent's teaching and not have a clear understanding of it for what it teaches clearly.

And how is it that one cannot see the contradiction between Trent and the catechisms. Or does one see the contradiction, yet accept a BOD, or accept both anyway.

As DL stated, it's illogical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** July 14, 2022, 07:04:02 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 13, 2022, 11:25:08 PM

It is that complexity associated with BOD that proves the error.

And the huge variation of interpretations regarding "BoD" proves that the Church never taught it. We can't believe in an amorphous concept. DR referred to the "core concept". If you define "core concept" as the greatest common denominator among all the permutations of BoD, what remains is the proposition that the Sacrament of Baptism is not in fact absolutely necessary for salvation ... in other words, heresy.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD (Read 22216 times)

DigitalLogos

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD

Stubborn

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD

Stubborn

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD

Stubborn

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD

Ladislaus

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD