When has the Church ever said that we need other men to explain Papal pronouncements to us? The Church has said that the pronouncements themselves are the final explanation.
St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s] determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe.”
The Council of Trent even tells us that the teaching of the Councils are what we are to understand and the Canons contained therein are for everybody, all the faithful, to make use of as the RULE OF FAITH!
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”
This makes the canon on the Sacrament of Baptism for all the faithful to understand, not to be interpreted or watered down to mean something it does not.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
This is not true. The Church's teaching on the necessity for water Baptism for salvation has been proven from sources of authority. He has no regard for the authority of the Magisterium. Instead, he appeals to men for his "faith". LOT's belief that the pronouncements of the Church need to be further "explained" by Church men so that we can "truly" have the real "understanding" of the Dogma is indeed a novelty.
quotes from MHFM site
…and further, for example, why are we NOT told as with dogma, to do anything other than to BELIEVE (not "understand", or "interpret" or "analyze" or read it "in context" or have someone ELSE tell us "what it really says/means"? What good is an INFALLIBLE teacher that cannot DIRECTLY, IMMEDIATELY and INFALLIBY >COMMUNICATE< said teaching? If it MUST be passed through FALLIBLE hands who therefore FALLIBLY teach INFALLIBLE matter then how does this not effectively render said teaching FALLIBLE at least for all others than the INFALLIBLE source? In other words, if it CAN'T be received infallibly, then it isn't and CAN'T be taught INFALLIBLY, because BY DEFINITION it is being imperfectly transmitted. Not infallibly learnable = not infallible teaching. It does no good to say "maybe" either because that is exactly the point. Why did S. Augustine say "I believe SO THAT I may understand" .^., UNDERSTANDING IS >CONTINGENT UPON BELIEF
When it comes to faith, we will NEVER (motive) understand FIRST. We must, like a child, TAKE GOD's WORD CFOR IT
Topic: John 3:5 (Read 34429 times)