Author Topic: SJB on BOD of the Catechumen (Read 4263 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** September 27, 2013, 06:52:25 PM »

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.

Alcuin · « **Reply #46 on:** September 27, 2013, 10:51:57 PM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #47 on:** September 28, 2013, 10:01:28 AM »

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?

Alcuin · « **Reply #48 on:** September 28, 2013, 10:16:49 AM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #49 on:** September 28, 2013, 12:20:32 PM »

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.

Jehanne · « **Reply #50 on:** September 28, 2013, 03:28:57 PM »

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?

SJB · « **Reply #51 on:** September 29, 2013, 09:18:36 AM »

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.