Quote from: Augstine Baker

BoD and Anonymous Christianity have never been taught anywhere in the Church before rationalism started creeping in.

Those are two entirely different subjects.  Baptism of Desire is very old.

Now if someone wants to appeal to the supposed "logic" of the Feeneyites (their quoting of the Council of Florence for example) then the issue is whether or not Baptism of Desire exists at all, not the sort of Divine Faith, explicit or implicit, that is required.

BoD isn't very old. It's a novelty. And implicit desire is very recent indeed.

St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception

People who worship Aquinas refuse to admit that he erred big time on this issue. He was one of the main reasons why it took so long for the Immaculate Conception to be dogmatically defined. The fact of the matter is that he did deny it:

Summa Theologica, Vol. 4, Pt. 3, Q. 14, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 1: "The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin, and therefore contracted these defects."

This isn't a matter of something that hasn't been formulated yet.  The deniers of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are claiming that the Church teaching authority hasn't correctly interpreted its infallibly defined doctrines or corrected its most eminent theologians, and that this has gone on for centuries.

The teaching authority is the Magisterium. The word 'magisterium', used by the Vatican Council, means 'teaching authority'. The theologians are not the Magisterium (and if they were, then the Magisterium would be contradictory and schizophrenic), so the "teaching authority" has not "incorrectly interpreted its infallibly defined doctrines."

Quote from: Man of the West

I may perhaps weigh in with a longer post later. For now I just wish to say that Telesphorus is right here.

Nadieimportante has a very studious mind, and I applaud the care he takes in lining up his sources and disposing his arguments. However, all that effort is wasted by his inability to see that his sources are not actually making the case he claims for them. This is an ignoratio elenchi[/i] fallacy.

IE fallacy introduces irrelevant material into the discussion, which ironically, is what you're doing here.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Do you even know what the terms in question mean?

There was nothing "irrelevant" about what I wrote. I was classifying Nadie's argumentative style as fallacious, and it is. It is entirely within the proper funtion of discussion to point out flaws in your opponent's argument.

Now what you just said, on the other hand, is not only irrelevant but misleading and false. I do not permit people to distort my written word like that. If you want to argue in bad faith, I will expose whatever you say to the humiliation it deserves.

Quote from: Jim

The Church wouldn't tolerate "contradictory opinions" for hundreds of years, especially when they concern a dogma of the Faith.

It's indisputable that it has, for hundreds of years, tolerated contradictory differences of opinion on subjects like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Universalism, Jansenism and so forth.  Not just for hundreds of years, but in some cases, notably the Assumption, for almost two millenia.

Most American prelates of any note have been flagrant exponents of the Americanist heresy, for example, starting with +Carrol and on and on.

It's also indisputable that many popes scandalously tolerated the laxist doctrines being promoted by the Jesuits in the 16th and 17th century - doctrines which (I think) most people on this board would be appalled at.

Also how could a man like John XXIII (who was even known to be a Modernist long before his 'election') or Paul VI be 'elected' by the majority of the 'cardinals' unless the popes prior to the council were tolerating filthy modernist heretics in the ranks? How could the Vatican II apostasy be embraced by approximately 2,600 bishops (nearly all of them) unless the popes prior to the Council were tolerating them in the ranks? Not all of them were crypto-heretics. Many of them had published writings before the council. Hardly a thing was done about those men.

There's no determined or defined limit on how long popes can tolerate evil, heresy, and heretics. If the popes can tolerate heretics for a few decades (Modernists), and they can tolerate heretics for over a century (Americanists), and they can tolerate heretics for a century and a half (laxists), then they can tolerate heresy for four centuries (EENS-Denial), and they can tolerate Baptism of Desire for even longer.

Quote from: Augustinian

People who worship Aquinas

While I admit that St. Thomas Aquinas' stance on the Immaculate Conception wasn't exactly spot-on, who here "worships" him? Do you have some sort of problem with every single Saint in Church history? I saw you cut down Pope St. Pius X earlier today...

The man who wrote that article (as far as I know) is Griff Ruby. He worships Aquinas, implicitly, because he refuses to admit that Thomas made a mistake on this issue. He treats him as an infallible rule, when it's well known that he made many errors. But as I said, Griff refuses to admit Aquinas made any errors. I can admit that St. Augustine made big errors; he himself admitted that.

As an aside, Griff Ruby doesn't think Martin Luther was necessarily a heretic.

Quote from: Augustinian

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Augustinian

People who worship Aquinas

While I admit that St. Thomas Aquinas' stance on the Immaculate Conception wasn't exactly spot-on, who here "worships" him? Do you have some sort of problem with every single Saint in Church history? I saw you cut down Pope St. Pius X earlier today...

The man who wrote that article (as far as I know) is Griff Ruby. He worships Aquinas, implicitly, because he refuses to admit that Thomas made a mistake on this issue. He treats him as an infallible rule, when it's well known that he made many errors. But as I said, Griff refuses to admit Aquinas made any errors. I can admit that St. Augustine made big errors; he himself admitted that.

As an aside, Griff Ruby doesn't think Martin Luther was necessarily a heretic.

Ah, I see.

So now that you have cleared that up, I'm still waiting for a clarification from you of why Pope Pius X is not a Saint, which you seemed to imply on another thread earlier today.

Don't want to derail this thread - it's going pretty good. If you search that Semi-Pelagian thread you will find the answer. He was incredibly weak against Modernism.

By the way, that particular article I just saw at the very bottom says John Lane. It's Griff Ruby's website though. They are basically the same person (meaning their beliefs).

It was irrelevant because your attribution of IE to what Nadie is saying shows you either don't understand what he's saying, don't understand what IE is or are interested solely in derailing the discussion.

I see very little point in maintaining civilities with you any longer. You have now proceeded to make unfounded accusations against both my intellect and my character. I'm warning you not to expect good things to come of that.

I have never derailed any discussion on this site, and I'm not about to disrupt this one by engaging any further with you.