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

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD  (Read 22218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Modern BOD heretics believe that ANYONE can be saved by BOD, including those outside of the Body, such as infidels (Jєωs, pagans, Muslims, etc) which is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to defined DOGMA on EENS.

Concedo. 

But it is possible to extend the notion of a BOD beyond catechumen and those with an explicit desire for the sacrament. I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it. 

I say you'd be going too far to say that anyone who says that someone who has an implicit desire for the sacrament, with explicit faith in Christ, can be saved is a heretic.

As for me, I have expressed my opinion on this here, and indicated that I believe the desire necessary requires an explicit desire for the sacrament. I also think I have very good reasons for that, but allow that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and respect the opinion of some very great and wise Catholics on that.

DR

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Stubborn,

Just to be clear, you would say not say St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus - I'll stop there - were in your personal opinion heretics, right? Only people who "persist in promoting the idea"? Not sure how one parses that, but . . .

DR

Well, I would say that Trent closed the issue for all time, and since Trent taught John 3:5 and contrary to a BOD, whoever still believes a BOD is in error - not a heretic. St. Thomas was in error on this subject and other subjects as well - so what? Regardless, St. Thomas died way before Trent, as for the other saints, it's whatever. If St. Thomas, arguably the greatest of all theologians, was in error on this subject - then no one is immune from error on this subject.

This is not at all about the great saints and Fathers, it's all about Trent having cleared up the matter for all of the faithful for all time, yet because there are text books we call catechisms with teachings contrary to Trent on this subject, the Catholic people believe the text books over Trent's clear teachings - why? That's all I'm asking, that is what I would like to know.



Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Well, I would say that Trent closed the issue for all time, and since Trent taught John 3:5 and contrary to a BOD, whoever still believes a BOD is in error - not a heretic. St. Thomas was in error on this subject and other subjects as well - so what? Regardless, St. Thomas died way before Trent, as for the other saints, it's whatever. If St. Thomas, arguably the greatest of all theologians, was in error on this subject - then no one is immune from error on this subject.

This is not at all about the great saints and Fathers, it's all about Trent having cleared up the matter for all of the faithful for all time, yet because there are text books we call catechisms with teachings contrary to Trent on this subject, the Catholic people believe the text books over Trent's clear teachings - why? That's all I'm asking, that is what I would like to know.

St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are after Trent. That's the "whatever." 

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Orestes Brownson gives an excellent summary of the issue:



Quote
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.


Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.





Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are after Trent. That's the "whatever."

True, yet St. Alphonsus condemned a BOD - also, apparently, taught it. 

Again, yes, it's whatever. It is "whatever" because Trent is the final word on the matter, and unlike the saints, we cannot question Trent's teaching, nor can we believe contrary to it - and certainly we cannot do both at the same time, yet most do. Why?