CathInfo.com

Yes, "[t]his thing is stupid and needs to stop." But you have the wrong "thing."

Without blinking, you essentially accuse Stuborn of Prot "private judgment" as you privately interpret St. Leo's letter, etc. and etc.

Yo, great defender, worthy thane and loyal subject to the Magisterium - as opposed to the rest of the heretics like Stubborn and I - tell me whether you agree with this principle:

Now, I'm sure you recognize the source of the quote. So to deflect a likely evasion tactic, I am asking you if you disagree with
expressed principle - that question has nothing to do with the source of the quote.

It's a wonder if you haven't caused the death of many member from choking on the vomit called up by your posts.

Your position is completely self-contradictory.

You carry on about "the Church's interpretation" being definitive but then absolutely ignore the interpretation of the Church (or what you claim to be the Catholic Church) that Vatican II represents a correct "interpretation" of the Church's Tradition regarding the matters about which it teaches.  You excoriate me for private judgment while applying your private judgment to trump that of the Magisterium regarding Vatican II.  Your contradictions put your dishonesty and bad will on display for all to see.  You claim that we are bound by the interpretations of theologians of the Church's meaning and intent, but then summarily reject these interpretations with regard to Vatican II ... even when they are made the "Popes" who actually taught these things, and who would be in the best position to know their own meaning and intent.

At least be consistent, accept the Church's interpretation of Catholic doctrine taught to the faithful at Vatican II, and go back to the Conciliar Church.  I'd have more respect for you if you did.  But you expose your mendacity and dishonesty with your self contradiction.

Your accusation that I am in contradiction regarding private judgment is incorrect.  We must indeed understand dogma as THE CHURCH understands it, not as various theologians understand it.  We have had no Magisterial clarification of what Trent meant by the passages that are being debated.  You illegitimately attempt to extend this notion of the Church's interpretation to meaning the various opinions, teachings, and interpretations of the theologians.  There are many doctrines taught by the Church that theologians are divided about in terms of their interpretation.  None of the groups of theologians can lay claim to having THE authoritative interpretation of the doctrine, even if they argue that theirs is correct and those of the others are not.  That is why we have the living Magisterium.  When such disputes arise, as the Church deems it necessary or important to intervene, they'll do so in order to resolve the latest dispute ... and the disputes are never-ending.

Of course, on the other hand, with Vatican II, since you claim the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, the Church has in fact issued a Magisterial interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  So you think it's OK to reject this interpretation from an Ecuмenical Council and 60 years of papal Magisterium, but then someone is rejecting "the Church's interpretation" in disagreeing with St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus regarding their reading of Trent.

Your position might be laughable if it weren't so tragic (and heretical).

Trent, Session VI, CHAPTER IV.



A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Where have I said that the "Church's interpretation of Catholic doctrine" in non-infallible magisterial statements is binding? I haven't.