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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 42102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2022, 10:44:09 PM »
At the Last Supper, not a single soul approached the Eucharist unbaptized, and I dare say not even Judas.

I absolutely believe Judas died with the sacramental character of Baptism on his soul.





Mystical City of God, Volume III, by Venerable Mary of Agreda

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol3/vol3.shtml



Quote
Quote
538.

(. . .)

Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.

Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2022, 12:24:27 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2022, 12:28:57 PM

I see what you're saying but I think it was way more widespread than +Lefebvre.  He was not the only influence on Trad priests.  The entire American hierarchy scorched +Feeney in the 50s; people were believing in BOD long, long before +Lefebvre.  Again, Orestes Brownson, one of the greatest American writers, was debating american clerics against BOD in the 1800s.  Then you have the liberal re-translation of the american Baltimore Catechism too.  I'm sure Europe was far, far more liberal.

Brownson may have been "debating american clerics against BOD," but if so, it was in the form of its perversions. He had a solid grasp of the issues regarding BOD and the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for salvation, and has one of the most precise and accurate comments on it I've ever read:



Quote
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.



Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.


Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2022, 05:43:42 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 22, 2022, 11:28:19 PM
So I hold that there is a BoB/BoD that can remit sin, i.e. can justify, but that it does not suffice for entry into the Kingdom,...
How do you square this with Trent teaching that justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration?"
Explain.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2022, 07:33:14 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on August 24, 2022, 05:43:42 AM
How do you square this with Trent teaching that justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration?"
Explain.

Why did you cut off the "or the desire for it" part?  It depends on how you read the "or the desire for it" part, eh, which you conveniently left off.

There were many theologians after Trent who made the justification vs. salvation distinction (similar to Father Feeney), saying, for instance, that infidels could be justified (under various conditions) but not saved.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #89 on: August 24, 2022, 07:40:04 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on August 24, 2022, 12:24:27 AM

Brownson may have been "debating american clerics against BOD," but if so, it was in the form of its perversions. He had a solid grasp of the issues regarding BOD and the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for salvation, and has one of the most precise and accurate comments on it I've ever read:

Bellarmine rejected the notion of BoD to anyone other than catechumens.  Is that what you believe about BoD?

Some argue that Bellarmine was excessively zealous in his theology that the Church is a visible society, and the only reason he allows admittance to the Church for catechumens is because in their formal status they are visibly connected with the Church.  Cf. Rahner's comments along the same lines about the Church Fathers.

Of course, this causes a problem for Bellarmine's own ecclesiology where he clearly stated that the Sacrament of Baptism (participating in the Church's Sacraments) is one of the criteria for membership in this visible society.

Bellarmine never explained the contradiction.  Others have speculated that one could be imperfectly united to the Church by meeting SOME of the criteria for visible membership, but the way Bellarmine explained it, one was excluded from the visible society if any ONE of his criteria were not met.  So there's a lingering unexplained contradiction in Bellarmine.

And the key to the contradiction can be found in Bellarmine's dealing with the catechumen problem.  His main justification for this exception (contradictory to his own criteria) was that "it would seem too harsh" to say otherwise.  Unfortunately, even the Doctors occasionally succuмb to emotion-driven theology.

In any case, since you promote Bellarmine, do you limit BoD to formal catechumens as he did?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 61
« previous next »