Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 15326 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #240 on:** August 29, 2022, 05:27:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 28, 2022, 05:48:28 PM

No. I didn't save the information. Just read it after he posted it.

The reason I ask is that I have substantial doubt that even the only theologian (Cano) who seems to have distinguished between justification and salvation in a way that could possibly support your position even considered the Session of Trent on justification in formulating his opinion. I would wager that, in the work where Cano discusses justification, he doesn't even take into account Trent's "opinion" (whatever it is in fullness) on the subject. I'm sure you would agree that would detract from any weight his opinion had.

I can get into this more later, but I think Cano expressed his views on justification in his book, Relectio de sacramentis genera.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #241 on:** August 29, 2022, 07:11:12 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on August 29, 2022, 05:27:17 AM

The reason I ask is that I have substantial doubt that even the only theologian (Cano) who seems to have distinguished between justification and salvation in a way that could possibly support your position even considered the Session of Trent on justification in formulating his opinion. I would wager that, in the work where Cano discusses justification, he doesn't even take into account Trent's "opinion" (whatever it is in fullness) on the subject. I'm sure you would agree that would detract from any weight his opinion had.

I can get into this more later, but I think Cano expressed his views on justification in his book, Relectio de sacramentis genera.

When I put in parens, "(whatever it is in fullness"), I was referring to Cano's opinion, and not referring to the council. I think the Council quite clear: "if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified."

I'd be shocked if a "Post-Tridentine" theologian expressed thoughts on justification without taking into account that language and Trent's definitive treatment of the subject. That would be inexcusable.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #242 on:** August 29, 2022, 09:13:21 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on August 29, 2022, 05:27:17 AM

The reason I ask is that I have substantial doubt that even the only theologian (Cano) who seems to have distinguished between justification and salvation in a way that could possibly support your position even considered the Session of Trent on justification in formulating his opinion. I would wager that, in the work where Cano discusses justification, he doesn't even take into account Trent's "opinion" (whatever it is in fullness) on the subject. I'm sure you would agree that would detract from any weight his opinion had.

I can get into this more later, but I think Cano expressed his views on justification in his book, Relectio de sacramentis genera.

The book is on Google in its original Latin. I searched for Trent and there's 3 references, all to Session 7 on the sacraments. No reference to Session VI on justification. Very odd.

Here's a link to the book and the references in it on Trent as far as I can gather:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q0V0tXbRp-cC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Trident&f=false

The reason I think this is the book where Cano speculates on justification is it's cited for the speculation here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ovnNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=melchior+cano+justification&source=bl&ots=Uc7DmdpWfI&sig=ACfU3U3VMt44v-jhINvSBDMQpuMJzeOpXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8k8Omrer5AhVXhIkEHUqCA8M4eBDoAXoECBMQAw#v=onepage&q=melchior%20cano%20justification&f=false

The reference is to the complete works, and I'll try to track it down.

augustineeens · « **Reply #243 on:** August 30, 2022, 10:18:45 PM »

Quote from: augustineeens on August 29, 2022, 12:29:57 AM

Major: No man is justified without being born again (Trent)
Minor: The desire for baptism does not give the grace of rebirth (St. Alphonsus)
Conclusion: The desire for baptism can not effect justification without the laver of regeneration.

What do you object to in this, Lad?

No reply? Curious...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #244 on:** August 30, 2022, 10:47:32 PM »

Quote from: augustineeens on August 30, 2022, 10:18:45 PM

No reply? Curious...

No reply because that syllogism is a butchered version of an argument made by the Dimond Brothers, and the way you have it structured makes no sense whatsoever. You attribute to St. Alphonsus in the MINOR not what he said, but in fact a CONCLUSION drawn by the Dimonds. So whatever it is you're trying to argue here makes no sense from your syllogism.

Without spending more time on the rest of it, right out of the gate, your MAJOR is patently false. Men are justified all the time after they through Confession ... even though there's no rebirth in Confession. So please try to think through what argument you're actually trying to make and present it in a correctly-structured syllogism.

augustineeens · « **Reply #245 on:** August 31, 2022, 07:36:14 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 30, 2022, 10:47:32 PM

Without spending more time on the rest of it, right out of the gate, your MAJOR is patently false. Men are justified all the time after they through Confession ... even though there's no rebirth in Confession. So please try to think through what argument you're actually trying to make and present it in a correctly-structured syllogism.

You are entirely misconstruing the major. People who are justified through the sacrament of penance or perfect contrition and the desire for it, have already been born again in baptism. Hence it is true that no man is justified who has not been born again in Baptism, as the Council of Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

You hold the contrary, that a man who has never been born again can be justified.

Stubborn · « **Reply #246 on:** August 31, 2022, 08:09:14 AM »

Quote from: augustineeens on August 31, 2022, 07:36:14 AM

You are entirely misconstruing the major. People who are justified through the sacrament of penance or perfect contrition and the desire for it, have already been born again in baptism. Hence it is true that no man is justified who has not been born again in Baptism, as the Council of Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

You hold the contrary, that a man who has never been born again can be justified.

You're not crazy augustine, the whole thread is all about Trent's teaching on the sacrament of baptism and justification, not confession.

augustineeens · « **Reply #247 on:** September 01, 2022, 12:47:33 AM »

Quote from: augustineeens on August 31, 2022, 07:36:14 AM

You are entirely misconstruing the major. People who are justified through the sacrament of penance or perfect contrition and the desire for it, have already been born again in baptism. Hence it is true that no man is justified who has not been born again in Baptism, as the Council of Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

You hold the contrary, that a man who has never been born again can be justified.

Crickets again... you are prone to writing lengthy essays over rather frivolous matters on this forum, why remain silent when you are directly challenged and refuted on such an important issue?

Xenophon · « **Reply #248 on:** September 02, 2022, 01:19:46 AM »

Quote from: augustineeens on August 31, 2022, 07:36:14 AM

You are entirely misconstruing the major. People who are justified through the sacrament of penance or perfect contrition and the desire for it, have already been born again in baptism. Hence it is true that no man is justified who has not been born again in Baptism, as the Council of Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

You hold the contrary, that a man who has never been born again can be justified.

POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. (DZ 1031)
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins. (DZ 1032)
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained. (DZ 1033)

Here's food for thought since I know where you're coming from.. The Dimonds reject every single Manual of Moral Theology, Canon Law, Catechism, Holy Office decree, Doctor/s of the Church, Bishop, Priest, and Pope/s that believed and taught BOD. But what authority do they have to reject a decree or docuмent from a valid pontificate and the valid hierarchy? One can't have it both ways, it destroys the very notion of the hierarchy to self appoint oneself a censor and inquisitor of all valid "non-infallible" docuмentation, if this were the case, how then, could the fallible Church organs exact any submission? Think about it, If the Church's organs were all "materially heretical" in the thousands of instances where BOD was taught, on what authority do they supplant the most current and valid Church docuмents? It's absolutely incoherent.

Syllabus of Errors (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

Lamentabili Sane (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #249 on:** September 02, 2022, 05:09:34 AM »

Quote from: Xenophon on September 02, 2022, 01:19:46 AM

POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. (DZ 1031)
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins. (DZ 1032)
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained. (DZ 1033)
Here's food for thought since I know where you're coming from.. The Dimonds reject every single Manual of Moral Theology, Canon Law, Catechism, Holy Office decree, Doctor/s of the Church, Bishop, Priest, and Pope/s that believed and taught BOD. But what authority do they have to reject a decree or docuмent from a valid pontificate and the valid hierarchy? One can't have it both ways, it destroys the very notion of the hierarchy to self appoint oneself a censor and inquisitor of all valid "non-infallible" docuмentation, if this were the case, how then, could the fallible Church organs exact any submission? Think about it, If the Church's organs were all "materially heretical" in the thousands of instances where BOD was taught, on what authority do they supplant the most current and valid Church docuмents? It's absolutely incoherent.

Syllabus of Errors (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

Lamentabili Sane (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

I hear you, and have been saying that about the anti-BODERS who believe in an indefectible ecclessia docens below the level of solemn pronouncements - and then they have to reject Trent, solemn authority, anyway. But that's besides the point (and let's grant them that Trent is "ambiguous" about BOD and - for Lad- justification).

Welcome to the world where one can opine that there can be justification without the grace of rebirth in Christ and yet maintain that they are submitting to the faith as taught by the Magisterium, which cannot err in teaching the faith . . . unless it disagrees with them. Then it can err and still be indefectible in its teaching.

Go figure.

praesul · « **Reply #250 on:** October 07, 2022, 12:56:30 AM »

Quote

I hear you, and have been saying that about the anti-BODERS who believe in an indefectible ecclessia docens below the level of solemn pronouncements - and then they have to reject Trent, solemn authority, anyway. But that's besides the point (and let's grant them that Trent is "ambiguous" about BOD and - for Lad- justification).

"Trent", as you call it, is not "ambiguous", but some people do not understand the inclusive use of the word or in the passage that is used by many who hold to the error of BoD.

Here are the words of our Savior:

John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

epiphany · « **Reply #251 on:** October 07, 2022, 01:38:56 AM »

Fr. Feeney was stripped of his priestly faculties in 1949 and excommunicated in 1953. The excommunication was not lifted until 1972.
Clearly the traditional Church says that there is more than one form of baptism.

praesul · « **Reply #252 on:** October 07, 2022, 02:38:03 AM »

Quote

Fr. Feeney was stripped of his priestly faculties in 1949 and excommunicated in 1953. The excommunication was not lifted until 1972.
Clearly the traditional Church says that there is more than one form of baptism.

Can you please share with me the official reason Fr. Feeney was disciplined?

epiphany · « **Reply #253 on:** October 07, 2022, 11:29:44 AM »

Quote from: praesul on October 07, 2022, 02:38:03 AM

Quote from: praesul 10/7/2022, 2:38:03 AM

Can you please share with me the official reason Fr. Feeney was disciplined?

You can Google it, but here is a very brief description i found:

In 1949, weary of Feeney’s denunciations, Cushing silenced him and ordered the St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Feeney served as chaplain, off limits to Catholics.

Boston College then fired four of Feeney’s followers for using their classrooms as forums to promote Feeney’s version of the Extra Ecclesiam doctrine.

Soon after, the Jesuits expelled Feeney for refusing to report to a faculty appointment at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, a violation of his vow of obedience.

Undaunted, Feeney refused to leave St. Benedict Center or remove his collar. Instead, he publicly accused Cushing of heresy.

Feeney called on Pius XII to issue an ex cathedra statement reaffirming the non-negotiable nature of the Extra Ecclesiam doctrine.

To Feeney’s apparent surprise, the Holy See refused. Instead, it summoned him to appear before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to explain why he should not be excommunicated.

Feeney refused to abandon his followers at St. Benedict Center even for a brief journey to Rome. Summoned to the Vatican a second time, he refused again.

Finally, in 1953, Pius XII excommunicated Feeney for heresy. According to Cardinal John Wright, the Pope personally translated the edict into English.

Here is another good summary:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney in 1972 without his having to recant his heresy.

praesul · « **Reply #254 on:** October 07, 2022, 12:49:22 PM »

Quote from: epiphany on October 07, 2022, 11:29:44 AM

Finally, in 1953, Pius XII excommunicated Feeney for heresy.

Thank you for the response epiphany.

From my research I do not think that the statement that Father Feeney was excommunicated "for heresy" is supported by the official docuмents on record.

Father Feeney's excommunication is docuмented in the AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100. It indicates he was excommunicated ipso facto for not appearing in front of the tribunal of the Holy Office. Thus, according to the official record, canonical penalties are being rendered for disobedience rather than for "heresy".

This is not the first time that I have encountered the assertion that Father Feeney was excommunicated "for heresy" as you posted. It seems that this assertion is part of a wider information war that was clearly (and still is) waged to sway the hearts and minds of people who are trying to seek the truth of the matter. Another fact that has impacted my perceptions on this chunk of history is that the infiltrator modernist prelates that were in charge in the Holy Office at that time broke the protocols of secrecy and leaked highly sensitive internal correspondence related to this matter with the anti-Christ secular press. Then, the secular press in a coordinated fashion used this leaked correspondence and hammered home the narrative that "the doctrine of Father Feeney" on salvation was declared heretical by the Pope. This was false, but here we are with many people in 2022 continuing to recycle this false notion.

It seems to me that the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation is not a creation of a Catholic priest named Leonard Feeney. It is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ that was upheld by the Deposit of Faith.

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 15326 times)

DecemRationis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

DecemRationis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

DecemRationis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

augustineeens

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Ladislaus

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

augustineeens

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Stubborn

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

augustineeens

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Xenophon

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

DecemRationis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

epiphany

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

epiphany

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)