Author Topic: Opponents to Authority of Theologians (Read 3156 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #30 on:** May 05, 2015, 08:11:55 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The thing is, if you read the CCC, it comes right out and says that they re-formulated the dogma.
Quote from: CCC
846....Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

So rather than teach that there is no salvation outside the Church, they re-formulate it into a meaningless formula - which is the same formula most trads believe is the authentic teaching of the Church thanks to Suprema Haec Sacra,
Quote from: CCC
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Those gullible souls who constantly argue that the EENS dogma "must be understood as the Church Herself understands it", do not accept that they are parroting the CCC's re-formulated teaching, which is not the dogma at all and therefore contrary to what the teaching of the Church is.

In short, whoever wants to reward heaven to those who through no fault of their own do not know the Church to be absolutely necessary for their salvation, all you need to do is the same thing the CCC does, namely, re-formulate the dogma.

Yes, Vatican II and the CCC tell us that this is the way that the Church understands this, which is to say, that the Church does not understand it as She declared it.
The Church declared this dogma in the negative, and as She wanted it to be understood. How dare they, like the protestants, "positively" re-formulate it.
To do so is to declare its opposite meaning. How dare they who agree with this say that they are holders of the Catholic Religion.

These folks have no problem using the so called authority of theologian's opinions to directly oppose the Divine authority of the the Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2015, 08:47:42 AM »

Quote from: Michael93

“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:

(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”

—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).

Thank you for saving me from having to respond to B.D. This is common knowledge or should be. But the feeneyites reject the teaching authority of the Church. They have a protestant attitude as to how they interpret things. Rather than sit at the feet of the master they tell him he is wrong because their interpretation of their modern heresy of our time won't let them. They trust their own intellects more than the Church which gives one an idea of what one should think of such intellects that brand themselves "Catholic".

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** May 07, 2015, 10:51:51 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Michael93
“Common Teaching of Theologians. A doctrine which theologians of all schools in the Church teach as being not only true but binding in Catholic faith. Such common teaching is one of the channels of the ordinary magisterium (q.v.) and therefore infallible. For this, moral, not absolute unanimity is necessary; contradictions from a group of weighty theologians would invalidate the binding force of the opinion on the rest. If all theologians deliver a doctrine concerning faith or morals as true or certain, without saying it is of Catholic faith the denial of that doctrine by an individual would be stigmatized as rash.”

—The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1931).

Absurd.

Theologians DO NOT make up any part of the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

Theologians DO NOT deliver doctrine.

Yes, the whole thing is quite unbelievable - particularly for sedevacantists like LoE who ignores papal infallible decrees and canons to embrace the supposed unanimous consensus of supposed theologians.

There is no such thing as “Common Teaching of Theologians" being infallible. If there is, then may as well say that evolution is true because THAT is the common teaching of scientists.

I swear, the lengths that sacrament despisers will go to in their attempts to justify their error as dogma while promoting dogma is error absolutely boggles the mind.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** May 07, 2015, 11:16:14 AM »

Positive reformulation would mean that there can only be salvation within the Church, not suddenly that salvation comes THROUGH the Church.

It's the same "instrumental cause" soteriology that +Lefebvre embraced and articulated.

JPaul · « **Reply #34 on:** May 07, 2015, 10:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Michael93
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:

(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”

—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).

Thank you for saving me from having to respond to B.D. This is common knowledge or should be. But the feeneyites reject the teaching authority of the Church. They have a protestant attitude as to how they interpret things. Rather than sit at the feet of the master they tell him he is wrong because their interpretation of their modern heresy of our time won't let them. They trust their own intellects more than the Church which gives one an idea of what one should think of such intellects that brand themselves "Catholic".

What nonsense! you must have been looking at your reflection in the monitor when you wrote this foolishness.

JPaul · « **Reply #35 on:** May 07, 2015, 10:11:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Positive reformulation would mean that there can only be salvation within the Church, not suddenly that salvation comes THROUGH the Church.

It's the same "instrumental cause" soteriology that +Lefebvre embraced and articulated.

Yes, When God is not refraining, Salvation passes right through the Church on its way one of those" other means of salvation"

Matto · « **Reply #36 on:** May 07, 2015, 10:25:43 PM »

I don't understand this issue very well. I know that the Church has defined infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation. But according to LOT we have to reject that because the modernist theologians reject that. And please let no one respond with the normal double talk that you really believe baptism is necessary for salvation even though you believe people don't need to be baptized to be saved. None of that necessity of means, necessity of precept nonsense which gives the dogma the opposite meaning than what the words actually say. But then again so many Catholics believed in BOD and BOB including doctors and popes and many saints. So I don't know what to believe. It seems obvious to me that we have to believe that only Catholics can be saved, but I do not know what to believe about BOD. So I tentatively believe in it for Catholics who have not been baptized such as catechumens and reject the idea that those in false religions and those ignorant of the Catholic faith can be saved (which most traditional Catholics seem to believe). And of course because of all of the confusion about this issue I am very unsure of myself and do not know if I am right or wrong because the teaching of the Church is not clear on this matter.

Stubborn · « **Reply #37 on:** May 08, 2015, 04:55:13 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I don't understand this issue very well. I know that the Church has defined infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation. But according to LOT we have to reject that because the modernist theologians reject that. And please let no one respond with the normal double talk that you really believe baptism is necessary for salvation even though you believe people don't need to be baptized to be saved. None of that necessity of means, necessity of precept nonsense which gives the dogma the opposite meaning than what the words actually say. But then again so many Catholics believed in BOD and BOB including doctors and popes and many saints. So I don't know what to believe. It seems obvious to me that we have to believe that only Catholics can be saved, but I do not know what to believe about BOD. So I tentatively believe in it for Catholics who have not been baptized such as catechumens and reject the idea that those in false religions and those ignorant of the Catholic faith can be saved (which most traditional Catholics seem to believe). And of course because of all of the confusion about this issue I am very unsure of myself and do not know if I am right or wrong because the teaching of the Church is not clear on this matter.

Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.

The confusion comes from trying to understand why otherwise educated trads continue to quote teachings which obviously contradict the above, while insisting there is no contradiction because bob/bod are a teaching of the Church.

So they are wrong on two points - 1) there certainly is a contradiction and 2) if bob/bod ever was a teaching of the Church, it is no longer after Trent settled the matter for all time.

Perhaps more confusion arises because some Fathers did speculate bob/bod. And these Fathers are quoted ad nausem as proof that the Church teaches three baptisms, this the BODers quote in spite of Trent, or they quote what is certainly a misinterpreted, if not an outright adulteration of the decree of Trent.

What we are bound to believe is the clear teaching of Trent. We must also believe that God will provide the sacrament to everyone who desires it no matter what the circuмstances, and that He will do so by the very same providence with which you and the rest of us received it.

If you meditate on the greatness of God and on His immeasurable love for us and for our salvation, you will find that it is impossible for you to concoct a scenario wherein one who truly desires to be a member of the Church could ever die before actually becoming a member through the sacrament of Baptism. BOB/BOD necessarily reject or corrupt the doctrine of Divine Providence in order to reward salvation to non-Catholic saints. A lack of faith in the Divine Providence is a requirement for believing and promoting a bob/bod.

JPaul · « **Reply #38 on:** May 08, 2015, 08:03:53 AM »

Stubborn,

Quote

A lack of faith in the Divine Providence is a requirement for believing and promoting a bob/bod.

Perfectly true! A lack of faith, a lack of trust, and a lack of confidence in.

Matto · « **Reply #39 on:** May 08, 2015, 12:00:16 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.

As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** May 08, 2015, 12:42:29 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stubborn
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.

As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?

Perhaps the truth is in the middle. No, the Church has not explicitly taught that there is no such thing as BoD/BoB. Clearly the Church has allowed the opinion among Catholics. At the same time, the Church has not actively taught that there IS a BoD. Consequently it's a matter of opinion and of speculation. Both sides that shout heresy are gravely mistaken. Those who call "Feeneyites" heretics are wrong, and so are the Dimonds who hold that anyone who believes in a restricted BoD for catechumens are heretics.

There's simply no evidence that BoD has been revealed.

There's been speculation on the subject and the opinion of BoD has been widely adopted.

But that doesn't make it dogma or infallible truth.

Trent taught the necessity of Baptism for salvation. After Trent, the BoD theorists such as St. Robert Belllarmine were careful to say that those who have BoD receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto, not that they are saved without it. That (arguably) preserves the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. But I consider it to be very weak.

As I said, I have not EVER seen a theological PROOF for BoD. They simply SAY it exists.

St. Augustine floated what he admitted to be a speculation (and later retracted it).

Early Scholastics, in consultation with St. Bernard, adopted BoD (evidently not knowing about St. Augustine's retraction). St. Bernard replied that he would rather err with Augustine than be right on his own. (Sounds authoritative, eh?)

Then it took hold among scholastics, including St. Thomas.

After St. Thomas, due to his authority, it eventually spread like wildfire.

So where's the ultimate authority, a tentative speculation by St. Augustine?

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** May 08, 2015, 01:29:29 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stubborn
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.

As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?

I want to say that in addition to Ladislaus' answer, we need to accept that the authority of Trent is superior to the speculations taught by the Fathers.

While there is no direct magisterial decrees condemning BOD, the clear teaching we are bound to is that the sacrament is necessary. Since we are bound to believe the sacrament is a necessity, I personally do not see how we can believe salvation is possible via NSAA ie a BOD or BOB.

In the scheme of things, the Church permits debates, arguments, speculations etc. on this teaching or that teaching, sometimes for centuries - aka The Immaculate conception - but once the Magisterial Authority of the Church steps in, (some 580 years after the death of the Angelic Doctor), the matter is settled for ever......Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est - Rome has spoken - the case is closed.

As for Catechisms, they are a text book. Revised and re-written many times over. Many people mistake them for Scripture or Apostolic Constitutions or something, but they are only text books written, revised and approved by men of power, like Cushing.

Quote

Link April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.

So why couldn't there be a BOD in the catechisms?