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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 42170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #115 on: August 24, 2022, 01:54:35 PM »
99% of Catholics post-Trent had absolutely no idea about BoD until theologians and clerics started reading into it and preaching it. The words of Trent themselves are quite clear on the face of it, as it should be given it is the Holy Ghost speaking through the Church.

Also, we are not permitted to reach for deeper meanings from dogmatic teachings per Vatican I, which is precisely what BoD advocates are doing.

Quote
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Logged

Offline songbird

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #116 on: August 24, 2022, 02:36:40 PM »
Did Holy Mother Church give to Her souls a definition for EENS. Or was it a explanation?  Definition of the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.  IF the definition was not completed, then we have problems.  

For Example: Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, was defined, big time! One hour and 50 min. of reading.  It was explained in the book, "The True Story of the Vatican Council," by Manning.  Very good reading in archives. It was stated that all dogmas are not defined, explained, but not defined like what was done for Papal Infallibility.  

I am with Fr. Feeney, for he told Rome, Define and did he get an answer?  When he asked, what is the reason for me to come to Rome. Rome gave no answer.
As long as there is room for God, God will judge the soul.  There is Baptism of Perfect Contrition.  There is also Fr. Muller.  His book is very thorough. He spoke of the universities/colleges in American infiltrated with water down dogma, written in late 1800's, long before Fr. Feeney came on the scene.  Many enemies!!
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #117 on: August 24, 2022, 02:57:11 PM »

Quote
I posted the actual teaching from Trent which is quite clear imo, not the least bit gray.
Well, church doctrine is not based on opinion.  There is a small, but consistent, historical speculation that a true desire for baptism (by a catechumen) can provide grace, just like we believe that a true desire for repentance can remit sin.  Many of the Church Fathers believed such, so it's not modernism.  As did St Thomas, St Augustine, St Bellarmine, St Alphonsus and Fr Feeney.  It's not clear cut, and no one HAS to believe in this exception, but...there's enough evidence (outside of Trent) to interpret Trent in this way.


Had the Church, through Trent, wanted to anathematize BOD, She could have, but She did not.  Does this prove BOD is 'de fide'?  Of course not, but it's another reason why there's gray area.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #118 on: August 24, 2022, 03:05:26 PM »
Quote from: songbird on August 24, 2022, 02:36:40 PM
Did Holy Mother Church give to Her souls a definition for EENS. Or was it a explanation?  Definition of the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.  IF the definition was not completed, then we have problems. 

For Example: Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, was defined, big time! One hour and 50 min. of reading.  It was explained in the book, "The True Story of the Vatican Council," by Manning.  Very good reading in archives. It was stated that all dogmas are not defined, explained, but not defined like what was done for Papal Infallibility. 

I am with Fr. Feeney, for he told Rome, Define and did he get an answer?  When he asked, what is the reason for me to come to Rome. Rome gave no answer.
As long as there is room for God, God will judge the soul.  There is Baptism of Perfect Contrition.  There is also Fr. Muller.  His book is very thorough. He spoke of the universities/colleges in American infiltrated with water down dogma, written in late 1800's, long before Fr. Feeney came on the scene.  Many enemies!!
I think part of the problem is theologians of the last few centuries doing exactly what V1 forbid them to do - which is what DL quoted above from V1. How the heck they ever got a BOD out of Trent is a mystery, because it is not in there.

The other problem is that the people have come to think that the teachings from basically all pre-V2 Councils are as confused as V2, hence they believe that teachings from all councils can not be properly understood by laity until interpreted and explained by theologians, which is ridiculous.

V2 docuмents are all alone in that they cannot be understood by even theologians - which is probably the reason that no theologians have ever interpreted them, nobody can really understand them. All the other councils of the Church are readily understood by even the laity, when read as written.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #119 on: August 24, 2022, 03:11:13 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2022, 02:57:11 PM
Well, church doctrine is not based on opinion.  There is a small, but consistent, historical speculation that a true desire for baptism (by a catechumen) can provide grace, just like we believe that a true desire for repentance can remit sin.  Many of the Church Fathers believed such, so it's not modernism.  As did St Thomas, St Augustine, St Bellarmine, St Alphonsus and Fr Feeney.  It's not clear cut, and no one HAS to believe in this exception, but...there's enough evidence (outside of Trent) to interpret Trent in this way.


Had the Church, through Trent, wanted to anathematize BOD, She could have, but She did not.  Does this prove BOD is 'de fide'?  Of course not, but it's another reason why there's gray area.
Ok, so what you are actually saying Pax, is that the one source that infallibly teaches of the necessity of the sacrament, Trent, you cannot use to prove what you are saying. And that makes sense.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 61
« previous next »