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

Author Topic: SJB on BOD of the Catechumen  (Read 4235 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
  • Reputation: +1932/-17
  • Gender: Male
SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2013, 06:52:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    We have two sources, The infallible dogmas and the opinion of theologians. They are clearly contradictory. To say otherwise is to lie, like LOT lied when he said he did not think baptism is optional. I say we should follow the infallible dogmas and you say we should follow the fallible theologians.
    Baptism isn't optional, but you can't seem to fathom what that statement actually means. The condemnation of the statement that "baptism IS optional" cannot be extrapolated into other meanings.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #46 on: September 27, 2013, 10:51:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.


    Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #47 on: September 28, 2013, 10:01:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Alcuin
    Quote from: Matto
    SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.


    Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.

    So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #48 on: September 28, 2013, 10:16:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Alcuin
    Quote from: Matto
    SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.


    Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.

    So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?


    This thread isn't about me.

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-2
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #49 on: September 28, 2013, 12:20:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Matto
    We have two sources, The infallible dogmas and the opinion of theologians. They are clearly contradictory. To say otherwise is to lie, like LOT lied when he said he did not think baptism is optional. I say we should follow the infallible dogmas and you say we should follow the fallible theologians.
    Baptism isn't optional, but you can't seem to fathom what that statement actually means. The condemnation of the statement that "baptism IS optional" cannot be extrapolated into other meanings.


    The elephant in your room is that you believe that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

    You are opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas and the Thomists, John 3:5 and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written.


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #50 on: September 28, 2013, 03:28:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Alcuin
    Quote from: Matto
    SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.


    Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.

    So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?


    How so?  Look in the traditional Denzinger's sometime and see who the editor was.  (Answer:  Father Karl Rahner).  Rahner was in good standing with Pope Pius XII, wasn't he?  Maybe a few censures, but those got cleaned-up.  Point is that when Pope Pius XII died, Rahner was an approved theologian within the Catholic Church.  Why not accept him as such?

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    SJB on BOD of the Catechumen
    « Reply #51 on: September 29, 2013, 09:18:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Alcuin
    Quote from: Matto
    SJB likes to pretend that neither he nor anyone else can read and that we need approved (modernist) theologians to read for us.


    Not when it comes to Vatican II though. Then he says all the approved theologians were wrong.

    So for you, Alcuin! Vatican II isn't a break with tradition? It isn't a unique event?


    How so?  Look in the traditional Denzinger's sometime and see who the editor was.  (Answer:  Father Karl Rahner).  Rahner was in good standing with Pope Pius XII, wasn't he?  Maybe a few censures, but those got cleaned-up.  Point is that when Pope Pius XII died, Rahner was an approved theologian within the Catholic Church.  Why not accept him as such?


    Yes, he was. Now you know that after Vatican II he was aware of the teaching of the Church, yet embraced the unorthodox positions for which he and others were silenced. It just proves he was pertinacious in his open heresy after Vatican II.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil