Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on April 30, 2015, 09:39:07 AM
-
II. Opponents to Authority of Theologians.
A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center of universe.)
B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)
1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and inane falsehood.”
2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured, the faith extinguished.”
C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)
D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of truth.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Refutation-of-the-Cekadian-Pseudo-Theology-as-Spammed-by-Lover-of-Heresy
-
I promise, LoH, that if you create one more thread on this same subject, I'll write Matthew to have you banned. This is the same subject, and you create 15 separate new threads about it, once again causing the forum to be borderline unusable. Don't say you haven't been warned.
-
I promise, LoH, that if you create one more thread on this same subject, I'll write Matthew to have you banned. This is the same subject, and you create 15 separate new threads about it, once again causing the forum to be borderline unusable. Don't say you haven't been warned.
LoH should do the same for the next time you derail a topic with BoD outside this subforum, which, of course, is the one place that Matthew has specifically set aside for creating and discussing the subject. Even when Matthew locks a topic because you have derailed it, you feign astonishment that your completely non-BoD comments that have one and only one meaning--i.e., you condemned BoD without specifically using the term--were unfairly used to bring up the topic.
I agree that LoH is wasting his time trying to talk sense into you because you are impervious to rational discussions on the matter. But it is even more idiotic to threaten someone for using the "Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism" subforum for the unforgivable sin of discussing Baptism of Desire and Feeneysim.
-
Only you heretics constantly conflate BoD with EENS in general. We're discussing broader soteriological questions on those other threads, but it's your contempt for EENS that causes you to see BoD everywhere.
-
Only you heretics constantly conflate BoD with EENS in general. We're discussing broader soteriological questions on those other threads, but it's your contempt for EENS that causes you to see BoD everywhere.
Straight shooting, there.
-
“Common Teaching of Theologians. A doctrine which theologians of all schools in the Church teach as being not only true but binding in Catholic faith. Such common teaching is one of the channels of the ordinary magisterium (q.v.) and therefore infallible. For this, moral, not absolute unanimity is necessary; contradictions from a group of weighty theologians would invalidate the binding force of the opinion on the rest. If all theologians deliver a doctrine concerning faith or morals as true or certain, without saying it is of Catholic faith the denial of that doctrine by an individual would be stigmatized as rash.”
—The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1931).
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).
I love this item from that book:
A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's ‘Dogmatik’, With A Preface By Cardinal Manning
SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.
2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circuмstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation {see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7). (Volume I, Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906)
You can almost literally see the theologians’ wheels spinning in those wonderful cogitations which got us where we are today.
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
All this proves that a BOD is not de fide as it does not meet "The Criteria".
OTOH, it does prove the necessity of the sacrament and the literal meaning of the dogma EENS, which does meet all of the above criteria.
-
Only you heretics constantly conflate BoD with EENS in general. We're discussing broader soteriological questions on those other threads, but it's your contempt for EENS that causes you to see BoD everywhere.
Straight shooting, there.
Yes, it's harsh, but there's no other recourse at this point, since they refuse to listen to reason. It's as if they have some Pavlovian conditioning whereby they start foaming at the mouth and having seizures at the mere mention of EENS (a Catholic dogma) after which they immediately start belching "Feeneyite! Feeneyite!" Even the bitter anti-Feeneyites will state that the chief errors of Vatican II are in the realm of soteriology and ecclesiology. When I agree, they start shouting "Feeneyite!", even though I never referred to BoD but just to general soteriology (the same things they were calling out).
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).
I love this item from that book:
A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's ‘Dogmatik’, With A Preface By Cardinal Manning
SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.
2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circuмstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation {see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7). (Volume I, Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906)
You can almost literally see the theologians’ wheels spinning in those wonderful cogitations which got us where we are today.
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
-
........I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
The other point to be made is that ALL the fathers, even the few that do speculate a BOD, always first and foremost teach that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation as an absolute and infallibly binding truth, an article of faith.
-
Only you heretics constantly conflate BoD with EENS in general. We're discussing broader soteriological questions on those other threads, but it's your contempt for EENS that causes you to see BoD everywhere.
Straight shooting, there.
Yes, it's harsh, but there's no other recourse at this point, since they refuse to listen to reason. It's as if they have some Pavlovian conditioning whereby they start foaming at the mouth and having seizures at the mere mention of EENS (a Catholic dogma) after which they immediately start belching "Feeneyite! Feeneyite!" Even the bitter anti-Feeneyites will state that the chief errors of Vatican II are in the realm of soteriology and ecclesiology. When I agree, they start shouting "Feeneyite!", even though I never referred to BoD but just to general soteriology (the same things they were calling out).
Yeah.
They complain about the smell from the stinking wound, but when you examine and probe the wound, they howl.
-
I think part of it is that Father Feeney was right in locating the problem with a denial of the doctrine of EENS.
Any whiff of vindication for him is verboten for them.
So we are in this trap.
-
Only you heretics constantly conflate BoD with EENS in general. We're discussing broader soteriological questions on those other threads, but it's your contempt for EENS that causes you to see BoD everywhere.
True. Well said
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
-
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
I can imagine St. Jerome using much harsher language than mine against recalcitrants like LoT.
-
As we can see in cases such as this that the strongest opponent of the theologians, is often the Church, Herself.
Theological cogitation.........that certainly hits the bod proposition on the head.....
-
It does not get any clearer than this:
The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953
Theologians' works are fallible and in no way they can supersede the authority of the Church Herself through her infallible Magisterium which is protected by Divine Assistance. Theologian's works have merit as long as they do not contradict this Infallible Magisterium guided by the Holy Ghost Himself. If you think that it can ever happen, then you are inverting the proper authority and believing men's word over God's.
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Cantarella,
Curious as to the source of your quotes, both the Pelagian question and St. Jerome’s response.
Thanks.
-
[
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Indeed.
They must affirm the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation - it’s dogma. And yet they say Jews, Muslims, pagans and Hindus can be saved. So they must maintain that a Jew or pagan who lives according to the dictates of his conscience and trying to be “good” and loving God - without believing in and sometimes even denying Christ - has the “Catholic faith.”
Some of them say, “pagans can be saved but not as pagans.” Excuse me - look at the subject of the sentence. Are they “pagans” or not? If such are not pagans, why do you call them “pagans”? If not “pagans,” what are they? Christians? Catholics? If they have the Catholic faith, what is the Catholic faith?
The “Catholic faith” is apparently anything that saves. Reducing the phrase to a “meaningless formula.”
Sophists.
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Cantarella,
Curious as to the source of your quotes, both the Pelagian question and St. Jerome’s response.
Thanks.
I read those quotes from an article that is called "On Exonerating Pelagius", published in From the Housetops (Publication of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center).
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Cantarella,
Curious as to the source of your quotes, both the Pelagian question and St. Jerome’s response.
Thanks.
I read those quotes from an article that is called "On Exonerating Pelagius", published in From the Housetops (Publication of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center).
Ok. If you have the article handy, does it cite anything for the quotes?
Thanks.
-
[
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Indeed.
They must affirm the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation - it’s dogma. And yet they say Jews, Muslims, pagans and Hindus can be saved. So they must maintain that a Jew or pagan who lives according to the dictates of his conscience and trying to be “good” and loving God - without believing in and sometimes even denying Christ - has the “Catholic faith.”
Some of them say, “pagans can be saved but not as pagans.” Excuse me - look at the subject of the sentence. Are they “pagans” or not? If such are not pagans, why do you call them “pagans”? If not “pagans,” what are they? Christians? Catholics? If they have the Catholic faith, what is the Catholic faith?
The “Catholic faith” is apparently anything that saves. Reducing the phrase to a “meaningless formula.”
Sophists.
That is how Modernists work. They start affirming, at least in public, the dogma, and then find loopholes and semantic ambiguities to totally obliterate it afterwards. I think Stubborn had a beautiful quote from Fr. Wathen explaining this phenomenon. Notice that the old heresy of Pelagianism is the one behind the false Ecuмenism we see today because it is a denial of original sin and the necessity of Divine Grace for salvation. Original sin which can only be remitted through Faith and BAPTISM. No one enters Heaven with the stain of Original Sin in their souls. We are in fact a damned race, who can only be regenerated through the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Cantarella,
Curious as to the source of your quotes, both the Pelagian question and St. Jerome’s response.
Thanks.
I read those quotes from an article that is called "On Exonerating Pelagius", published in From the Housetops (Publication of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center).
Ok. If you have the article handy, does it cite anything for the quotes?
Thanks.
These are the references found next to the quotes:
Monsignor Joseph Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, translated from the German by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder, St. Louis, 1916, pp. 218-219.
St. Jerome, Letter to Ctesiphontes, Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, 21, 1147-1161, translated from the Latin by Giovanni Ricciardi, 30 Days, February, 1991, English edition, San Francisco, pp. 50-51.
Here is an online link to all Letters of St. Jerome. This is my favorite saint by far:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001.htm
-
Notice the "theology" taking place here. There's absolutely NO syllogistic reasoning. Throughout this passage the entire theological premise is just that it would be "unfair" if those who are "unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation" could not be saved. (Pelagianism anyone?) I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, NOT ONCE seen a theological PROOF for BoD. Theologians from St. Thomas to St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus to everyone thereafter simply SAY that it exists. At best they'll cite the "authority" of St. Augustine or St. Ambrose. But St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life, admittedly threw it out there as pure speculation in the first place, and St. Ambrose's speech is ambiguous. Meanwhile, about 7-8 Church Fathers explicitly REJECT BoD. There's absolutely NOTHING here to prove BoD. NOTHING.
Cushingites have NOTHING theologically except for their imagined appeal to "authority". That's why LoT was having another one of his mental breakdowns in creating 15 spam threads on the same subject.
Plain Pelagianism is what it is.
This is the question Pelagius asked:
"If all men had indeed inherited original sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized, what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?"
Sounds familiar?
For what St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius replied:
“But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: ‘I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)….’
“It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate.”[2]
The challenge for the cushinguites to provide ONE single infallible statement defending the non necesity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation persist and will never be met.
Cantarella,
Curious as to the source of your quotes, both the Pelagian question and St. Jerome’s response.
Thanks.
I read those quotes from an article that is called "On Exonerating Pelagius", published in From the Housetops (Publication of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center).
Ok. If you have the article handy, does it cite anything for the quotes?
Thanks.
These are the references found next to the quotes:
Monsignor Joseph Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, translated from the German by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder, St. Louis, 1916, pp. 218-219.
St. Jerome, Letter to Ctesiphontes, Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, 21, 1147-1161, translated from the Latin by Giovanni Ricciardi, 30 Days, February, 1991, English edition, San Francisco, pp. 50-51.
Here is an online link to all Letters of St. Jerome. This is my favorite saint by far:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001.htm
Thank you.
-
That is how Modernists work. They start affirming, at least in public, the dogma, and then find loopholes and semantic ambiguities to totally obliterate it afterwards. I think Stubborn had a beautiful quote from Fr. Wathen explaining this phenomenon.
Found the quote:
Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject (EENS) explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the for- mula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into deny- ing.
This is most definitely the pattern.
-
That is how Modernists work. They start affirming, at least in public, the dogma, and then find loopholes and semantic ambiguities to totally obliterate it afterwards. I think Stubborn had a beautiful quote from Fr. Wathen explaining this phenomenon.
Found the quote:
Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject (EENS) explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the for- mula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into deny- ing.
This is most definitely the pattern.
Yes, for confirmation of this, read the CCC or the Daily Catholic..................
-
The thing is, if you read the CCC, it comes right out and says that they re-formulated the dogma.
846....Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
So rather than teach that there is no salvation outside the Church, they re-formulate it into a meaningless formula - which is the same formula most trads believe is the authentic teaching of the Church thanks to Suprema Haec Sacra,This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Those gullible souls who constantly argue that the EENS dogma "must be understood as the Church Herself understands it", do not accept that they are parroting the CCC's re-formulated teaching, which is not the dogma at all and therefore contrary to what the teaching of the Church is.
In short, whoever wants to reward heaven to those who through no fault of their own do not know the Church to be absolutely necessary for their salvation, all you need to do is the same thing the CCC does, namely, re-formulate the dogma.
-
The thing is, if you read the CCC, it comes right out and says that they re-formulated the dogma.
846....Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
So rather than teach that there is no salvation outside the Church, they re-formulate it into a meaningless formula - which is the same formula most trads believe is the authentic teaching of the Church thanks to Suprema Haec Sacra,This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Those gullible souls who constantly argue that the EENS dogma "must be understood as the Church Herself understands it", do not accept that they are parroting the CCC's re-formulated teaching, which is not the dogma at all and therefore contrary to what the teaching of the Church is.
In short, whoever wants to reward heaven to those who through no fault of their own do not know the Church to be absolutely necessary for their salvation, all you need to do is the same thing the CCC does, namely, re-formulate the dogma.
Yes, Vatican II and the CCC tell us that this is the way that the Church understands this, which is to say, that the Church does not understand it as She declared it.
The Church declared this dogma in the negative, and as She wanted it to be understood. How dare they, like the protestants, "positively" re-formulate it.
To do so is to declare its opposite meaning. How dare they who agree with this say that they are holders of the Catholic Religion.
These folks have no problem using the so called authority of theologian's opinions to directly oppose the Divine authority of the the Church.
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).
Thank you for saving me from having to respond to B.D. This is common knowledge or should be. But the feeneyites reject the teaching authority of the Church. They have a protestant attitude as to how they interpret things. Rather than sit at the feet of the master they tell him he is wrong because their interpretation of their modern heresy of our time won't let them. They trust their own intellects more than the Church which gives one an idea of what one should think of such intellects that brand themselves "Catholic".
-
“Common Teaching of Theologians. A doctrine which theologians of all schools in the Church teach as being not only true but binding in Catholic faith. Such common teaching is one of the channels of the ordinary magisterium (q.v.) and therefore infallible. For this, moral, not absolute unanimity is necessary; contradictions from a group of weighty theologians would invalidate the binding force of the opinion on the rest. If all theologians deliver a doctrine concerning faith or morals as true or certain, without saying it is of Catholic faith the denial of that doctrine by an individual would be stigmatized as rash.”
—The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1931).
Absurd.
Theologians DO NOT make up any part of the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.
Theologians DO NOT deliver doctrine.
Yes, the whole thing is quite unbelievable - particularly for sedevacantists like LoE who ignores papal infallible decrees and canons to embrace the supposed unanimous consensus of supposed theologians.
There is no such thing as “Common Teaching of Theologians" being infallible. If there is, then may as well say that evolution is true because THAT is the common teaching of scientists.
I swear, the lengths that sacrament despisers will go to in their attempts to justify their error as dogma while promoting dogma is error absolutely boggles the mind.
-
Positive reformulation would mean that there can only be salvation within the Church, not suddenly that salvation comes THROUGH the Church.
It's the same "instrumental cause" soteriology that +Lefebvre embraced and articulated.
-
“The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:
(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecuмenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.”
—A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatik", Vol I., 4th Ed. By Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D., and Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., With A Preface by Cardinal Manning (1909).
Thank you for saving me from having to respond to B.D. This is common knowledge or should be. But the feeneyites reject the teaching authority of the Church. They have a protestant attitude as to how they interpret things. Rather than sit at the feet of the master they tell him he is wrong because their interpretation of their modern heresy of our time won't let them. They trust their own intellects more than the Church which gives one an idea of what one should think of such intellects that brand themselves "Catholic".
What nonsense! you must have been looking at your reflection in the monitor when you wrote this foolishness.
-
Positive reformulation would mean that there can only be salvation within the Church, not suddenly that salvation comes THROUGH the Church.
It's the same "instrumental cause" soteriology that +Lefebvre embraced and articulated.
Yes, When God is not refraining, Salvation passes right through the Church on its way one of those" other means of salvation"
-
I don't understand this issue very well. I know that the Church has defined infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation. But according to LOT we have to reject that because the modernist theologians reject that. And please let no one respond with the normal double talk that you really believe baptism is necessary for salvation even though you believe people don't need to be baptized to be saved. None of that necessity of means, necessity of precept nonsense which gives the dogma the opposite meaning than what the words actually say. But then again so many Catholics believed in BOD and BOB including doctors and popes and many saints. So I don't know what to believe. It seems obvious to me that we have to believe that only Catholics can be saved, but I do not know what to believe about BOD. So I tentatively believe in it for Catholics who have not been baptized such as catechumens and reject the idea that those in false religions and those ignorant of the Catholic faith can be saved (which most traditional Catholics seem to believe). And of course because of all of the confusion about this issue I am very unsure of myself and do not know if I am right or wrong because the teaching of the Church is not clear on this matter.
-
I don't understand this issue very well. I know that the Church has defined infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation. But according to LOT we have to reject that because the modernist theologians reject that. And please let no one respond with the normal double talk that you really believe baptism is necessary for salvation even though you believe people don't need to be baptized to be saved. None of that necessity of means, necessity of precept nonsense which gives the dogma the opposite meaning than what the words actually say. But then again so many Catholics believed in BOD and BOB including doctors and popes and many saints. So I don't know what to believe. It seems obvious to me that we have to believe that only Catholics can be saved, but I do not know what to believe about BOD. So I tentatively believe in it for Catholics who have not been baptized such as catechumens and reject the idea that those in false religions and those ignorant of the Catholic faith can be saved (which most traditional Catholics seem to believe). And of course because of all of the confusion about this issue I am very unsure of myself and do not know if I am right or wrong because the teaching of the Church is not clear on this matter.
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.
The confusion comes from trying to understand why otherwise educated trads continue to quote teachings which obviously contradict the above, while insisting there is no contradiction because bob/bod are a teaching of the Church.
So they are wrong on two points - 1) there certainly is a contradiction and 2) if bob/bod ever was a teaching of the Church, it is no longer after Trent settled the matter for all time.
Perhaps more confusion arises because some Fathers did speculate bob/bod. And these Fathers are quoted ad nausem as proof that the Church teaches three baptisms, this the BODers quote in spite of Trent, or they quote what is certainly a misinterpreted, if not an outright adulteration of the decree of Trent.
What we are bound to believe is the clear teaching of Trent. We must also believe that God will provide the sacrament to everyone who desires it no matter what the circuмstances, and that He will do so by the very same providence with which you and the rest of us received it.
If you meditate on the greatness of God and on His immeasurable love for us and for our salvation, you will find that it is impossible for you to concoct a scenario wherein one who truly desires to be a member of the Church could ever die before actually becoming a member through the sacrament of Baptism. BOB/BOD necessarily reject or corrupt the doctrine of Divine Providence (http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3435660.0) in order to reward salvation to non-Catholic saints. A lack of faith in the Divine Providence is a requirement for believing and promoting a bob/bod.
-
Stubborn,
A lack of faith in the Divine Providence is a requirement for believing and promoting a bob/bod.
Perfectly true! A lack of faith, a lack of trust, and a lack of confidence in.
-
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.
As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?
-
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.
As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?
Perhaps the truth is in the middle. No, the Church has not explicitly taught that there is no such thing as BoD/BoB. Clearly the Church has allowed the opinion among Catholics. At the same time, the Church has not actively taught that there IS a BoD. Consequently it's a matter of opinion and of speculation. Both sides that shout heresy are gravely mistaken. Those who call "Feeneyites" heretics are wrong, and so are the Dimonds who hold that anyone who believes in a restricted BoD for catechumens are heretics.
There's simply no evidence that BoD has been revealed.
There's been speculation on the subject and the opinion of BoD has been widely adopted.
But that doesn't make it dogma or infallible truth.
Trent taught the necessity of Baptism for salvation. After Trent, the BoD theorists such as St. Robert Belllarmine were careful to say that those who have BoD receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto, not that they are saved without it. That (arguably) preserves the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. But I consider it to be very weak.
As I said, I have not EVER seen a theological PROOF for BoD. They simply SAY it exists.
St. Augustine floated what he admitted to be a speculation (and later retracted it).
Early Scholastics, in consultation with St. Bernard, adopted BoD (evidently not knowing about St. Augustine's retraction). St. Bernard replied that he would rather err with Augustine than be right on his own. (Sounds authoritative, eh?)
Then it took hold among scholastics, including St. Thomas.
After St. Thomas, due to his authority, it eventually spread like wildfire.
So where's the ultimate authority, a tentative speculation by St. Augustine?
-
Actually Matto, the teaching of the Church is quite clear; the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and the sacrament of baptism is not optional. This is the teaching of Trent and Scripture especially John 3:5 and Eph 4:5. This teaching is the common and constant teaching of the Church.
As an example of why I believe the teaching is not clear is if the Church has always taught that there was no BOD or BOB, why do so many of the Catechisms teach BOD and BOB? Why did so many saints believe in it? Why did even some Popes teach it?
I want to say that in addition to Ladislaus' answer, we need to accept that the authority of Trent is superior to the speculations taught by the Fathers.
While there is no direct magisterial decrees condemning BOD, the clear teaching we are bound to is that the sacrament is necessary. Since we are bound to believe the sacrament is a necessity, I personally do not see how we can believe salvation is possible via NSAA ie a BOD or BOB.
In the scheme of things, the Church permits debates, arguments, speculations etc. on this teaching or that teaching, sometimes for centuries - aka The Immaculate conception - but once the Magisterial Authority of the Church steps in, (some 580 years after the death of the Angelic Doctor), the matter is settled for ever......Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est - Rome has spoken - the case is closed.
As for Catechisms, they are a text book. Revised and re-written many times over. Many people mistake them for Scripture or Apostolic Constitutions or something, but they are only text books written, revised and approved by men of power, like Cushing.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19490422&id=2FwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1867,2814290) April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.
So why couldn't there be a BOD in the catechisms?