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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 28

Author Topic: Implicit BOD  (Read 18976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #90 on: September 18, 2020, 05:22:21 AM »
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.
Honestly, I was just using shorthands... if you can give me better shorthands to use that don't involve conceeding the argument, I'd be OK with that.  Obviously at the moment I'm not convinced that you're right about what Trent taught, else I wouldn't be advancing the argument.  I'm trying to figure out *why* all the Trad clergy seem to disagree with you about *what* Trent taught.

I get why "feeneyite" is problematic, because technically that would also mean rejection of BOD for Catechumens, and even if you believe that, you aren't seriously arguing for it.

I'd use "strict" EENS except there are circles that I'm in in which I'd be considered strict, just not so much on this forum.  But if it would really make the conversation go smoother I'd be willing to agree to use that term here.

But I and others who don't take your position on what you call Tridentine ecclesiology *aren't* against EENS.  We're disagreeing on *what* EENS entails, and what that practically means for those who are not *visible members* of the Church.

I guess another way to put it would be... we agree that the Church is a visible society, but is it *only* visible?  I mean I guess that would be your argument.  That there is *no* invisible component to the society at all.  Whereas I suspect the Trad clergy would argue that yes, the Church is a visible society, and yet it is *possible* to be an invisible member.

There's a Dimond video (to be clear I'm referencing this to make a specific point, *not* categorizing you with Dimond) which is called "Sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma" and at the end they mockingly quote some elderly independent Sede priest who says "The Church has never taught, and never will teach" that "All who are not *formal and visible* members of the Church" are damned.  And Peter Dimond mocks him and suggests he's never heard of Florence.  But of course (mind, I suppose at least in English) Florence says those who are *outside* the church are damned, whereas this priest said not all who aren't *formal and visible* members are damned, and I was just like... thats' a different thing, at least on its face.  Can we prove that its the same thing?

I have to end this message here now, but can interact later.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #91 on: September 18, 2020, 05:34:16 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 18, 2020, 05:22:21 AM
Honestly, I was just using shorthands... if you can give me better shorthands to use that don't involve conceeding the argument, I'd be OK with that.  

OK, I get that, but this particular shorthand has not been helpful to the debate.  I, and many straight (non-Dimondite) "Feeneyites" consider BoD to be something of a side issue.  What we're advocating here is Bellarminism and Trentism and Thomism ... NOT "Feeneyism".

What we're talking about is a different ECCLESIOLOGY.  Trent emphatically taught that the Church is a visible society whose members are easily identified.  Vatican II subsistence ecclesiogy holds that there's a visible core but then also individuals who are within the Church invisibly.

So it's not Feeney vs. Vatican II.  It's TRENT vs. Vatican II.

Those Doctors who taught Baptism of Desire still held that the catechumens belonged to the visible Church because they were identifiable as such by their profession of the faith.
This notion of an amorphous partly-visible-partly-invisible Church is more akin to the Protestant theology that Trent was condemning than to Trent's ecclesiology.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #92 on: September 18, 2020, 07:20:46 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 18, 2020, 05:22:21 AM
Obviously at the moment I'm not convinced that you're right about what Trent taught, else I wouldn't be advancing the argument.  I'm trying to figure out *why* all the Trad clergy seem to disagree with you about *what* Trent taught.
The writer as with 99.99% of all BODers, will never be convinced of even the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, for his belief is the same as Fr. Cekada, not really a belief, but an unbelief:

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”


That quote by Fr. Cekada, may he rest in peace, needs to be updated to address a defined BOD, the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. Below is what  99.99% of BODers really believe TODAY concerning the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas (and of course what the writer above believes):

“With the strict, literal interpretation of the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who do not have explicit desire to be baptized or explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation ( the Divinity of Jesus Christ) .  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-believers - Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews.... who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #93 on: September 18, 2020, 10:41:09 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 18, 2020, 05:34:16 AM
OK, I get that, but this particular shorthand has not been helpful to the debate.  I, and many straight (non-Dimondite) "Feeneyites" consider BoD to be something of a side issue.  What we're advocating here is Bellarminism and Trentism and Thomism ... NOT "Feeneyism".

What we're talking about is a different ECCLESIOLOGY.  Trent emphatically taught that the Church is a visible society whose members are easily identified.  Vatican II subsistence ecclesiogy holds that there's a visible core but then also individuals who are within the Church invisibly.

So it's not Feeney vs. Vatican II.  It's TRENT vs. Vatican II.

Those Doctors who taught Baptism of Desire still held that the catechumens belonged to the visible Church because they were identifiable as such by their profession of the faith.
This notion of an amorphous partly-visible-partly-invisible Church is more akin to the Protestant theology that Trent was condemning than to Trent's ecclesiology.
OK so I don't want to use "feeneyism" because it comes off as a bit of a slur (which is not intended) but you're proposed alternative term basically assumes the other side of the debate.  I believe, at least in good faith, that Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XII, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of St Pius X take my side of the debate.  furthermore, we *both* know for certain that Archbishop Lefebvre simultaneously rejected Vatican II but still took my side of this debate.  Now I'm open to being convinced that our position leads to Vatican II, but I haven't seen this proven yet.  Is there any more "neutral" terminology you'd be willing to agree to?  Maybe something like "Feeeny's EENS" (which would leave out the BOD issue) vs "Lefebvre's EENS"?  Or maybe "strict" vs "looser" EENS?  I'd even do "strict" vs "Lefebvre's" if that helps move things forward, since we all know what Lefebvre taught on the issue, and its pretty quotable.

Keep in mind that you're basically putting every sedevacantist priest on the side of Vatican II rather than Trent.  I can understand saying they don't side with Trent (whether correct or not) but I don't see how you can accuse Sedevacantist priests (or SSPX priests for that matter) of getting their ecclesiology from a council they object.

All that said I will admit that Ive never understood how someone could object *specifically* to the "subsist in" line  and yet not take the strict EENS position (I'll use that one for now unless you tell me me you prefer something different.)  I generally have not objected to this part of Vatican II personally, but I have objected to *other* parts of Vatican II, including parts that seem to suggest ecuмenism between Catholics and Muslims or Protestants is justifiable, and also on religious liberty which I think is a pretty overt contradiction.

Honestly, as an ex protestant I can tell you that Protestant ecclesiology is a lot different than *any* stripe of Trad ecclesiology that I've ever seen.  But honestly, its also a lot different from Vatican II.  Protestantism doesn't have "a visible society that you can be invisibly part of."  This *may* have been the position of Martin Luther or John Calvin.  But at this point Protestantism is a bunch of disparate visible socieites, which may or may not be in communion with each other, which are varying degrees of optional, and which are all part of the "invisible church of all who believe (insert a minimum set of doctrines that can't be defended by a concrete principle).
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #94 on: September 18, 2020, 10:57:49 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 18, 2020, 10:41:09 AM
Honestly, as an ex protestant I can tell you that Protestant ecclesiology is a lot different than *any* stripe of Trad ecclesiology that I've ever seen.
There is no Protestant church, therefore it follows that there can be no Protestant ecclesiology. There are as many Protestant "churches" as there are Protestants, each Protestant is a "church" of one.
Protestantism is like BOD, there are many as BOD's as there are BODers, but in the end all the BODers  have one belief in common, their unbelief in EENS as it is written, moreover, their disbelief in even the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. Just the same as the Protestants, the only thing Protestants  have in common with each other is their unbelief that the Catholic Church is One true Church, the tone true faith and road to salvation.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 28
« previous next »