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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 28

Author Topic: Implicit BOD  (Read 19019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2020, 05:11:08 PM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 17, 2020, 11:11:21 AM
If Vatican II was wrong for NOT taking the Feeneyite position on EENS, ...

Hey, ByzCat, I've pointed this out several times now, and yet you persist.  We are not talking about the "Feeneyite" position on EENS and ecclesiology, but rather Tridentine ecclesiology (defining the Church as a visible society) and Thomistic ecclesiology and soteriology.

Vatican II presents a brand new ecclesiology, and the dispute over BoD is of little moment in that regard.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2020, 05:12:30 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on September 17, 2020, 02:45:58 PM
The non-Sedes oppose Feeneyism because of the OUM before V2, and yet they recognize an "OUM" after V2 that effectively impugns the OUM as a cogent (or even any) authority in any argument.

Well stated.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #82 on: September 17, 2020, 05:15:02 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2020, 05:12:30 PM
Well stated.

Poorly stated.

R&R does not recognize in the post-V2 teachings the OUM.

These novel errors are what is known as the "authentic magisterium" (which is actually not magisterial at all).
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2020, 05:36:56 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2020, 05:11:08 PM
Hey, ByzCat, I've pointed this out several times now, and yet you persist.  We are not talking about the "Feeneyite" position on EENS and ecclesiology, but rather Tridentine ecclesiology (defining the Church as a visible society) and Thomistic ecclesiology and soteriology.

Vatican II presents a brand new ecclesiology, and the dispute over BoD is of little moment in that regard.
You yourself said that to be consistent with his implicit faith form of BOD, +ABL should've accepted Vatican 2 since he was already adopting EENS-denying ecclesiology. And he's far from alone, pretty much all the Trad clergy agree with him. So by your own words, they should all accept Vatican 2 to be logically consistent with their beliefs. 
Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2020, 09:10:03 PM »
Quote from: forlorn on September 17, 2020, 05:36:56 PM
So by your own words, they should all accept Vatican 2 to be logically consistent with their beliefs.

Bishop Sanborn

Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004)


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687101/#msg687101


Absolutely
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 28
« previous next »