Author Topic: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD  (Read 2813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13506
  • Reputation: +6973/-1699
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2017, 01:59:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    AES: Is it schismatic to claim that the denial of the Immaculate Conception is heretical even though the Dogmas of the Church were revealed by Our Lord or Apostles and therefore have been believed by the Church since the beginning?

    Obviously not, because it's been defined.  But, yes, it would have been schismatic to declare St. Thomas a heretic for teaching wrong on this point BEFORE it was defined.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13506
    • Reputation: +6973/-1699
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #31 on: October 04, 2017, 02:03:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    AES: I am speaking of Baptism being an External Rite. Trent specifically states how Confession is received in voto. It does nothing of the sort for Baptism. I know you know this but how is it not specific error to say that one can receive the effects of Baptism, which consists of the words and water, without having the words and water applied. Especially when Trent specifically says that Baptism is necessary.

    Confession is an external rite also, with matter and form.  Yet the Council Fathers say it can be received in votoi.  If Baptism could be received, similarly, in voto, then it could in that way remain necessary for salvation even if it must be received saltem in voto ("at least in desire") as taught by Trent about Confession.  So there's no difference here.


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #32 on: October 04, 2017, 02:16:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can see the proper distinctions pointed at by Leo XIII, and with which the traditional views regarding BOD of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, e.g., are in perfect concordance:


    Quote
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]And faith itself – that is assent given to the first and supreme truth – though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession – “For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x., 10). In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.[/color]

    Satis Cognitum
    [/size]

    You also see the same understanding being expressed in the Roman Catechism:


    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

    St. Pius X referred to the Catechism of Trent as follows:

    Quote
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]In [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Acerbo Nimis, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]an encyclical letter issued in 1905, Pope St. Pius X states the following: “…the chief cause of the present indifference … is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.” “In matters of religion, the majority of men in our times must be considered uninstructed.” The Saint then established cate­chetical regulations and proclaims: “We … strictly command that they be observed and carried out in all dioceses of the world.” He further emphasizes: “The cate­chetical instruction shall be based on the CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.”[/color]

    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]http://catholicism.org/catechism-council-trent.html[/color]

    [/font][/size]
    He said that despite the presence of "heresy" on this vital issue (the absolute necessary of water baptism) in the Catechism? The only way you can say the Catechism is "heretical" with a strict it is impossible to be saved without water baptism view is by doing cartwheels about justification or what "unforeseen accident" or "will avail them to grace and righteousness" means.

    The BOD of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and St. Robert is not a heresy, and I do not believe it will ever be pronounced to be such. A general teaching regarding the possibility of salvific grace received in voto through BOD in catechisms, manuals of dogmatic theology, etc. will likely always be the teaching of the Church.

    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #33 on: October 04, 2017, 02:29:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Confession is an external rite also, with matter and form.  Yet the Council Fathers say it can be received in votoi.  If Baptism could be received, similarly, in voto, then it could in that way remain necessary for salvation even if it must be received saltem in voto ("at least in desire") as taught by Trent about Confession.  So there's no difference here.
    True but Trent does not teach this. Making a mistake from misreading Trent while formulating an opinion is different from adhering to a doctrine that is contradictory to Dogma after seeing all the proof and fully understanding the issue.

    Also, please respond to my last post.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13506
    • Reputation: +6973/-1699
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #34 on: October 04, 2017, 03:03:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • True but Trent does not teach this.

    Trent teaches this about Confession, and some people try to extend it to Baptism.  At the very least, it's NOT heresy.


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #35 on: October 04, 2017, 05:45:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent teaches this about Confession, and some people try to extend it to Baptism.  At the very least, it's NOT heresy.

    And Trent also specifically makes a comparison between baptism and penance, the one of course involving initial or original justification and the other restorative justification after falling into sin after baptism:

    Quote
    And this sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after baptism, just as baptism itself is necessary for salvation for those not yet regenerated.
    Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 2

    If, despite having the same necessity, the sacrament of penance can avail to justification in voto, ergo . . .
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #36 on: October 05, 2017, 07:29:40 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent teaches this about Confession, and some people try to extend it to Baptism.  At the very least, it's NOT heresy.
    Yes but at most it is heresy. Especially after someone sees fully and understands fully what Trent did and did not teach. Trent is very clear. Both Penance and Baptism are absolutely necessary (Penance for sin after Baptism)but Trent explicitly says that the actual Sacrament of Penance can be received in voto. It nowhere says this about Baptism. I think that once all of this has been thoroughly explained to someone who accepts BOD for Cat's only, and they reject it, then they can be considered heretics. This is not something to easily throw around but the bad will is too prevalent today, most everyone rejects Truth. Also, how many out there only believe in BOD for Cat's only anyway, it's probably not even taught by any person in authority.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #37 on: October 05, 2017, 07:33:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If, despite having the same necessity, the sacrament of penance can avail to justification in voto, ergo . . .
    Ergo what? Ergo Baptism can be received in voto? Nope. Trent is absolutely silent on Baptism being received in voto. In fact, Trent goes out of its way to make exceptions and qualification when needed i.e. Penance, Original Sin of Mary. It did not make them for Baptism. It is necessary. No exceptions.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #38 on: October 05, 2017, 08:02:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ergo what? Ergo Baptism can be received in voto? Nope. Trent is absolutely silent on Baptism being received in voto. In fact, Trent goes out of its way to make exceptions and qualification when needed i.e. Penance, Original Sin of Mary. It did not make them for Baptism. It is necessary. No exceptions.

    Trent is "absolutely silent" on baptism being received in voto? Nope.


    Quote

    Caput IV.Chapter IV.
    Insinuatur descriptio justifactionis impii, et modus ejus in statu gratiæ.A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the manner thereof in the state of grace.
    Quibus verbis justifications impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,—as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God,114 through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.115
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #39 on: October 05, 2017, 08:11:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes but at most it is heresy. Especially after someone sees fully and understands fully what Trent did and did not teach. Trent is very clear. Both Penance and Baptism are absolutely necessary (Penance for sin after Baptism)but Trent explicitly says that the actual Sacrament of Penance can be received in voto. It nowhere says this about Baptism. I think that once all of this has been thoroughly explained to someone who accepts BOD for Cat's only, and they reject it, then they can be considered heretics. This is not something to easily throw around but the bad will is too prevalent today, most everyone rejects Truth. Also, how many out there only believe in BOD for Cat's only anyway, it's probably not even taught by any person in authority.

    Was St. Alphonsus a "heretic"? If not, why not? Because neither you nor the Dimonds were around to explain it to him?
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #40 on: October 05, 2017, 08:24:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent is "absolutely silent" on baptism being received in voto? Nope.
    Absolutely silent, yup. What you posted has nothing to do with BOD. It has to do with the need to desire Baptism and the fact that no one can be forced to be Baptized. The words "at least" are not in the sentence.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if it were saying that one can be justified without the Sacrament, it doesn't say that it's salvific. Sure it would possibly imply it but it wouldn't explicitly say it. Also, it is very different from the wording used in regards to Penance.

    Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”

    Please tell me you can see the glaring differences. When it says "before this Sacrament is actually received" or "at least in desire" or the "either...or" nature of the ending of the sentence. These all make it clear that the desire for the Sacrament (along with perfect contrition) is sufficient for reception. None of the little qualifiers are present in the statement on Justification. Once this has been pointed out and any other questions answered, a person of good will would be able to see that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary without exception.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #41 on: October 05, 2017, 08:29:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Was St. Alphonsus a "heretic"? (No) If not, why not? (Not pertinacious, cited wrong passage in Trent to explain his opinion, he's a Saint
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #42 on: October 05, 2017, 09:31:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Absolutely silent, yup. What you posted has nothing to do with BOD. It has to do with the need to desire Baptism and the fact that no one can be forced to be Baptized. The words "at least" are not in the sentence.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if it were saying that one can be justified without the Sacrament, it doesn't say that it's salvific. Sure it would possibly imply it but it wouldn't explicitly say it. Also, it is very different from the wording used in regards to Penance.

    Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”

    Please tell me you can see the glaring differences. When it says "before this Sacrament is actually received" or "at least in desire" or the "either...or" nature of the ending of the sentence. These all make it clear that the desire for the Sacrament (along with perfect contrition) is sufficient for reception. None of the little qualifiers are present in the statement on Justification. Once this has been pointed out and any other questions answered, a person of good will would be able to see that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary without exception.
    I don't need to read this and give you my "opinion." You're missing the issue. You are declaring heretical a view that was professed by doctors of the Church, and saints, such as St. Alphonsus. I cited Trent for your claims that Trent was "absolutely silent" regarding BOD. You disagree with the meaning of "aut ejus voto," but everyone but the Dimonds and hard-line Feeneyites disagree with you, and the fact they interpret a reference to "voto" in Trent certainly means it's not "absolutely silent." 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #43 on: October 05, 2017, 10:18:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: tornpage on Today at 08:11:51 AM
    Quote
    Was St. Alphonsus a "heretic"? (No) If not, why not? (Not pertinacious, cited wrong passage in Trent to explain his opinion, he's a Saint


    And why wasn't he pertinacious? He certainly read Trent, studied the Council, was an eminent theologian, so eminent that he became a doctor, but I guess you're saying he was confused because he cited the "wrong passage" in Trent, so not pertinacious. I'm not aware of anyone claiming he was in error on BOD either prior to "Feeneyism," despite his works being vetted for doctrinal soundness prior to becoming a saint in the mid-Nineteenth century and his being studied in depth as befits a doctor.

    How about St. Robert Bellarmine, who also read Trent and "studied the issues" - to paraphrase you:


    Quote
    De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

    Was he not pertinacious and only adopting merely a heretical error too? He got the Section of Trent right. So on what basis was he not "pertinacious"? Not having you or the Dimonds around to explain it to him?
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Catholictrue

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +77/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #44 on: October 05, 2017, 10:32:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • ... BoD is NOT heretical.

    In fact, to claim that BoD is heretical would be schismatic... the Church declared several of these men to be DOCTORS of the Church.
    Ladislaus (who denies Catholic teaching on the sacraments and the Papacy) and Tornpage believe that it's unthinkable that a doctor of the Church could, without becoming a heretic, teach an error that contradicts a dogmatically certain truth.  Consequently, they conclude that if a doctor of the Church taught something, it must not be contrary to a truth that is dogmatically certain.  They advance such nonsense because they don't know what they are talking about.  They don't understand the Magisterium or the relevant facts of Church history.  Allow me to further illustrate that fact.

    In 1616 eleven theologians of the Holy Office, with the (non-infallible) approval of Pope Paul V and the involvement of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, condemned heliocentrism as heretical.  Then, in 1633, Galileo was compelled by the Holy Office to denounce as ‘heresy’ the position that the earth is not the center of the universe.

    Based on your position, Ladislaus and Tornpage, which considers it unthinkable that a doctor of the Church could be wrong in considering something dogmatic when it is not and vice versa, you would have to say that St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, was correct when he considered heliocentrism to be heretical and when he actively worked to get Galileo to reject it as heretical.  Ladislaus, is that your view (i.e. that Bellarmine was correct when he considered heliocentrism heresy)?  If he was wrong, how was he not schismatic for condemning as heretical what was not?

    But if he was correct, how could later Roman Congregations have taken the opposite  position (i.e. contrary to Pope Paul V and Bellarmine) and allowed this ‘heresy’ to be taught without the members of those congregations having become heretics?  Further, how could Pope Benedict XV have publicly contradicted the so-called ‘dogma’ of geocentrism without becoming a heretic?   Your answers to those questions will further illustrate that you are wrong, that you don't know what you are talking about, and that MHFM is correct: it’s quite possible for doctors of the Church and popes (in their non-infallible capacity) to be completely wrong about the theological status of a truth without necessarily being heretics (both in regard to considering something to be dogmatic that isn’t and failing to recognize something as dogmatic when it is).  

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16