Author Topic: Feeneyism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI (Read 6243 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** March 14, 2017, 03:46:21 PM »

So here are the two schools of thought:

1) Explicit Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation

2) Explicit Faith in a God who rewards the good and punishes is required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctors of the Church, all held opinion #1.

Am I as a Catholic allowed to hold opinion #1?

Matto · « **Reply #31 on:** March 14, 2017, 03:54:07 PM »

Where do babies who die without baptism go? They are all invincibly ignorant and are not guilty of actual sin, so are they saved by BOD?

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #32 on:** March 14, 2017, 04:04:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
One cannot be saved without believing in God. The belief cannot be merely by natural reason, but also with supernatural faith (besides sanctifying grace with BoD can give).

OK, then please stop going on about invincible ignorance. You have to have some minimal knowledge regarding the faith in order to be saved. This going on and on about inculpability, etc., is a waste of everyone's time. EVERYONE knows that you are not culpable for things not known in invincible ignorance.

You are, therefore a Rewarder God theorist. Please stop blabbering about invincible ignorance. If someone is required to know about Rewarder God in order to be saved, then invincible ignorance about Rewarder God matters little. It means simply that the person will not be PUNISHED for lack of belief in Rewarder God. Yet the person cannot be saved. Likewise, if knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary, invincible ignorance of these means nothing either. So invincible ignorance is a complete ruse and a misdirection.

Our argument is whether explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation or whether explicit faith in Rewarder God suffices. So stop babbling about invincible ignorance.

So, I answered correctly. The rest you say gives the impression that you want to have a full discussion. Based on your record, you will bail out if I continue this. But, let's give it another shot!

Here you actually show that you don't really know the meaning and significance of "implicit". You don't, and Feeneyites repeatedly show they don't, and think they do, but they constantly look foolish acting as if they do, but but really don't.

Fine, it looks like you are trying to get to the bottom line by saying, "Our argument is..."

Haven't you already admitted that the minority opinion of theologians on this was allowed by the Church? Yes, or No?

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #33 on:** March 14, 2017, 04:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So here are the two schools of thought:

1) Explicit Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation

2) Explicit Faith in a God who rewards the good and punishes is required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctors of the Church, all held opinion #1.

Am I as a Catholic allowed to hold opinion #1?

While I was composing my last post, you posted this, but it is apropos to what I posted about the two opinions.

Now I will answer: If #2 is allowed by the Church, should you condemn it? Yes, or No?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 14, 2017, 05:18:20 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Haven't you already admitted that the minority opinion of theologians on this was allowed by the Church? Yes, or No?

Yes, I can reject this opinion. In fact, I follow St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus in rejecting this opinion (St. Alphonsus did so explicitly).

Now, in holding this minority opinion, you're saying that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus were wrong.

That's the problem, isn't it, when it comes to your "negative infallibility" position. At one point, you (or else bosco did, I can't remember) that if the Church hasn't CONDEMNED an opinion, then one MUST believe it. Please admit that this is incorrect. I'm looking for some intellectual honesty here.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** March 14, 2017, 05:19:45 PM »

In rejecting Rewarder God theory, I have St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine and the majority of all Catholic theologians on MY side. You are a renegade, a rebel if you will.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** March 14, 2017, 05:24:06 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Haven't you already admitted that the minority opinion of theologians on this was allowed by the Church? Yes, or No?

It has never been explicitly condemned, and therefore has been tolerated in the practical order. Not condemning (=tolerating) is not the same things as actively allowing. Lots of heresies flourished in Church history before for extended periods of time before the Church explicitly condemned them.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #37 on:** March 14, 2017, 05:45:11 PM »

Ladislaus, You can reject an approved opinion without condemning it as evil. So, I am asking, do you condemn the minority opinion as dangerous to the faith? Yes, or No?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 14, 2017, 06:15:44 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Ladislaus, You can reject an approved opinion without condemning it as evil. So, I am asking, do you condemn the minority opinion as dangerous to the faith? Yes, or No?

You have yet to answer a single question of mine. You respond with questions. I will answer this question of yours if you answer mine first; my answer is already implied in a previous post, but I will answer this very directly.

Are you saying that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus were wrong in their opinion (#1)?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** March 14, 2017, 06:27:00 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Ladislaus, You can reject an approved opinion without condemning it as evil. So, I am asking, do you condemn the minority opinion as dangerous to the faith? Yes, or No?

Here, I'll be gracious and answer this before you answer mine. But I fully expect you to start answering my questions.

I reject part of your premise, namely, that this is an "approved" opinion. It's an opinion that has not been explicitly condemned. That is known as toleration. But, yes, otherwise, ABSOLUTELY, I reject and condemn this opinion as harmful to the faith. I hold it to be heretical in violation of the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's the very foundation for all the modern Vatican II ecclesiological errors (but we'll save that for another time).

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #40 on:** March 14, 2017, 06:29:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Ladislaus, You can reject an approved opinion without condemning it as evil. So, I am asking, do you condemn the minority opinion as dangerous to the faith? Yes, or No?

You have yet to answer a single question of mine. You respond with questions. I will answer this question of yours if you answer mine first; my answer is already implied in a previous post, but I will answer this very directly.

Are you saying that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus were wrong in their opinion (#1)?

They can be wrong, IF the Church says there is another acceptable opinion opposed to it. Do you actually condemn the opinion the Church says is allowable?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2017, 06:39:16 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Ladislaus, You can reject an approved opinion without condemning it as evil. So, I am asking, do you condemn the minority opinion as dangerous to the faith? Yes, or No?

You have yet to answer a single question of mine. You respond with questions. I will answer this question of yours if you answer mine first; my answer is already implied in a previous post, but I will answer this very directly.

Are you saying that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus were wrong in their opinion (#1)?

They can be wrong, IF the Church says there is another acceptable opinion opposed to it. Do you actually condemn the opinion the Church says is allowable?

That's not the question. I'm not asking whether they COULD be wrong. I'm asking whether, in your opinion, they WERE wrong. You have repeatedly stated that WE are wrong for holding this opinion. But you're afraid to say that these Doctors of the Church are wrong. That takes some guts, eh?, to say that revered Doctors of the Church who have been approved and delcared Doctors are wrong, while you are right.

You add a false criterion that you make up yourself. They can be wrong PERIOD. Your "IF the Church says there is another acceptable opinion opposed to it" is completely made up. So, for instance, until the year 1600 there was no other opinion period. So before 1600 they COULD NOT have been wrong, while starting in the year 1600 they suddenly could be wrong. That's just absurd.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** March 14, 2017, 07:00:20 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

[Doctors of the Church] can be wrong,

Indeed this is the correct Catholic opinion. And this is where LoT had a serious intellectual dilemma. He was so vocal in condemning us for disagreeing with these Doctors on BoD that when we pointed out his contradiction in disagreeing with the same on the requirement of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation, that he would start shifting into the explicit faith camp. But when the heat was off (and we had moved on from the topic) he started promoting Rewarder God theory again. This mental vacillation almost occasioned a breakdown on his part.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #43 on:** March 14, 2017, 07:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
[Doctors of the Church] can be wrong,

Indeed this is the correct Catholic opinion. And this is where LoT had a serious intellectual dilemma. He was so vocal in condemning us for disagreeing with these Doctors on BoD that when we pointed out his contradiction in disagreeing with the same on the requirement of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity & Incarnation, that he would start shifting into the explicit faith camp. But when the heat was off (and we had moved on from the topic) he started promoting Rewarder God theory again. This mental vacillation almost occasioned a breakdown on his part.

Don't digress. Can the Church allow a theological opinion that is against solemn dogma? Yes, or No?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2017, 07:03:55 PM »

So, to come full circle to the Gregory XVI quote at the beginning of this thread, what Pope Gregory is talking about is ACTIVELY allowing something that might be harmful to the Church (e.g. "the Church hereby allows Communion in the Hand"). Being passively silent does not compromise the Church's holiness, as there could be many reasons why the Church would fail to condemn (aka "tolerate") a harmful opinion (e.g. other priorities when the opinion was advanced by only a few isolated nutcases, etc.). In fact, if you examine the history of the Church, with EVERY heresy, the heresy flourished for a significant length of time before the Church stepped in to formally condemn it.