Author Topic: Popes on EENS  (Read 2238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline saintbosco13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
  • Reputation: +200/-284
  • Gender: Male
Popes on EENS
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2017, 01:04:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13
    Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13
    Quote from: MarylandTrad
    http://catholicism.org/eens-popes.html

    The Popes through the centuries have defended the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Here is small reference of their teachings on the matter:

    Ordinary Magisterium

    Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

    Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

    Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

    Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

    Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

    Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

    Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

    “He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

    Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

    Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

    Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

    Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the 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 Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)



    As if anyone would disagree with these quotes! There are just as many quotes from popes and Doctors of the Church that approve of baptism of desire and blood (see baptismofdesire.com). All the quotes must be taken collectively.

    What you are doing here is the equivalent of the Protestant argument that "faith alone" is required for salvation while ignoring all of the quotes that say "good works" are also required.



    I would like to see as many detailing that those who die ignorant of the faith are saved.


    The truth on the matter has nothing to do with how many quotes can be collected. Many quotes are collected primarily because the Feeneyites are thickheaded, but in reality,  if even only one true Pope gives us a quote on something, we must believe it. Catholics don't go around counting how many popes said something before they believe it.






    So which true Pope has said, Not that those who die in Invincible Ignorance CAN be saved (Which is related to potential, not means), but those who die in invincible ignorance but full of good works ARE saved (Which is related actuality, not potentiality)? Where's that golden nugget hiding?



    Quotes I'm being saved in invincible ignorance/perfect contrition, either from or approved by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII, have already been posted in these discussions multiple times. How many times they need to be posted?






    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12456
    • Reputation: +6471/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #16 on: March 17, 2017, 01:05:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: saintbosco13
    ... the Church Fathers and Theologians teach it continuously, as the quotes I just provided above state.


    Uhm, no, no they don't.  Not even close.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12456
    • Reputation: +6471/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #17 on: March 17, 2017, 01:11:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: saintbosco13
    Quotes I'm being saved in invincible ignorance/perfect contrition, either from or approved by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII, have already been posted in these discussions multiple times. How many times they need to be posted?


    As we've pointed out to you many times, moran, the invincibility or not of ignorance has nothing to do with whether someone can be saved ... but only with their degree of culpability in the matter.  If the person is ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation (and all theologians hold that there are some), then it matters not whether that person is invincibly ignorant or not.  What matters is the question of what truths must be known in order to be saved (i.e. Rewarder God vs. Trinity/Incarnation).

    You can "POST" these quotes all you want.  Problem is that you distort their meaning (to the point of imputing heresy to these popes).


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #18 on: March 17, 2017, 02:31:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let me break it down for you: it is perfectly possible to believe something hypothetically true yet posit a theory that apparently contradicts the hypothesis.

    For example, there is an ongoing dispute in the Church regarding the nature of predestination and election, and there are like 5 schools of thought all of which affirm different things and contradict one another in different ways. But they all seek to keep within the bounds of defined dogma.

    A particular instance is the Augustinian school of the understanding of Grace and predestination. Now, we know it is a heresy to teach that grace considered generally is irresistible. But it is NOT a heresy to posit intrinsically efficacious grace is infallibly efficacious. What's the difference? One says mans will is compromised by God, the other that God can infallibly woo man and appeal to his freedom in such a way that man always responds. So there can be an apparent contradiction that when properly explained is no contradiction, but is easily confused because phenomenological lay the results are practically indistinguishable, in this case between the Calvinist irresistible grace and the Augustinian Victorious delight of grace.

    Similarly there can be apparent contradictions between the saints fathers popes and councils, yet the understanding can be harmonized and synthesized in such a way that the contradiction is only apparent, skin deep. And since dogma has priority, all theological opinions must be reconciled in the direction of dogma.

    So you can have one saint say all the elect are predestined to be water baptized, as St. Augustine says. You can have a council define that outside the Church there is neither sanctity nor remission of sins, and you can have a pope teach in an encyclical that the invincibly ignorant can be saved.

    What then is a consistent and non-contradictory understanding? That firstly there is no remission of sins outside the Church, nor is there the infusion of charity, which is salvation. Therefore, we can say with Augustine that all the elect are predestined to be actually baptized, and grant Pope Pius IX his theological opinion, that those who are good willed but ignorant can be enlightened, but their enlightenment will come through the mediation of the Church in accordance with those means which are necessary by a necessity of means: Explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, and water baptism.

    None of this denies the invincibly ignorant can be saved nor does it deny that those who sincerely resolve to receive water baptism can be justified by that resolve. It simply completes the posited scenarios in such a way that satisfies many of the teachings of the other fathers and theologians and the simple facts of history regarding extraordinary miracles that have taken place specifically SO the ignorant could be baptized.

    Any contradiction or denial you see is apparent and comes from the fact that you are merely systematizing a bias rather than trying to SYNTHESIZE the fathers, councils, saints and facts.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5946
    • Reputation: +3622/-203
    • Gender: Female
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #19 on: March 17, 2017, 10:55:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: Gregory I
    What then is a consistent and non-contradictory understanding? That firstly there is no remission of sins outside the Church, nor is there the infusion of charity, which is salvation. Therefore, we can say with Augustine that all the elect are predestined to be actually baptized, and grant Pope Pius IX his theological opinion, that those who are good willed but ignorant can be enlightened, but their enlightenment will come through the mediation of the Church in accordance with those means which are necessary by a necessity of means: Explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, and water baptism.


    That is precisely the undertanding Feeneyites at Saint Benedict Center have of Pius IX' Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. There is no contradiction.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1726
    • Reputation: +723/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #20 on: March 18, 2017, 01:18:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bosco
    Even Seven,
    You're absolutely killing me with your heresies. KILLING me.

    Quote from: An even Seven

     Wow, you think that the belief that all infallibility comes from the Pope is heretical.
    AND
    The speculation of theologians are not divinely revealed truths.


    Theologians speculating is not divine revelation moron.

    Quote from: bosco
    You are directly denying A Commentary on Canon Law (1918) on the ordinary magisterium: "What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."

    A Catholic Dictionary says exactly the same thing under the definition of Magisterium: "The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”

    Both of the above are trusted sources with imprimatur.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the document on Dogma, confirms this:

    "...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”

    WAKE UP!!!!


    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.
     
    Quote from: bosco
    Quote from: An even Seven

     The definition from the Dictionary is different than the one given in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's a quote from the C.E.


    The typical Feeneyite response that we've been seeing over and over in these discussions; that the Church is contradicting itself. Look again at the definition you provided from the CE and it is the SAME from A Catholic Dictionary.


    The dictionary quote you give adds catechisms and others to the list of OUM while the CE does not.
    Also, the Church cannot contradict itself. If you have the Church infallibly teaching one thing and church men teaching something contradictory, it is not the Church contradicting herself. It is men making errors.

    Quote from: bosco
    I also noticed you quote the CE when it suits you, and condemn it when it doesn't.  So hypocritical. Do you trust this resource or not?


    I generally trust the CE but not to teach me Dogma. I rely on the Councils and Popes to do that.

    Quote from: bosco
    When a doctrine is taught continuously throughout the Church without being condemned (i.e. baptism of desire), it is part of the ordinary magisterium and must be believed. THAT is why the CE quote I gave above states, "while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”


    BOD has not been continuously taught. You are a liar. The necessity of Baptism however, has.

    Quote from: bosco
    Quote from: An even Seven

     It depends on who says it is de fide. There are instances where Churchmen considered certain things de fide but ended up being challenged and overturned. If a Pope or Council solemnly declares something to be De Fide, then it would be so. This does not apply to individuals other than the Pope.


    Holy smokes. You are creating phony doctrine out of thin air here. No one has to "say" something is de fide, it simply IS when the Church Fathers and Theologians teach it continuously, as the quotes I just provided above state. You really need to buy some traditional Catholic books and LEARN before you post any further.


    So according to you, if there is just one quote from a Church Father against BOD, then you would agree that it would not be de fide.







    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +217/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #21 on: March 18, 2017, 10:36:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: saintbosco13
    Quotes I'm being saved in invincible ignorance/perfect contrition, either from or approved by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII, have already been posted in these discussions multiple times. How many times they need to be posted?


    As we've pointed out to you many times, moran, the invincibility or not of ignorance has nothing to do with whether someone can be saved ... but only with their degree of culpability in the matter.  If the person is ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation (and all theologians hold that there are some), then it matters not whether that person is invincibly ignorant or not.  What matters is the question of what truths must be known in order to be saved (i.e. Rewarder God vs. Trinity/Incarnation).

    You can "POST" these quotes all you want.  Problem is that you distort their meaning (to the point of imputing heresy to these popes).



    All you Feeneyites keep doing is taking potshots and running away. You can't seem to follow and hold a discursive discussion right through.

    You bailed on the discussion when I asked you to provide proof for your assertion that the minority opinion was looked at as being danger to the faith. You dropped the discussion.

    I answer once about the believing Church being infallible, and you dropped the discussion. All just piecemeal potshots.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    What matters is the question of what truths must be known in order to be saved (i.e. Rewarder God vs. Trinity/Incarnation).


    Is that supposed to be a start of a discussion again, or just to the beginning of a potshot?

    I'm game. The question you bring up is not in order to be saved, but really in order to be baptized with the Sacrament.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 642
    • Reputation: +200/-284
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #22 on: March 18, 2017, 11:35:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2

  • Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.






    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #23 on: March 18, 2017, 03:55:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: saintbosco13

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.






    Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion. If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

    Nevertheless, today prevails the opinion of St. Thomas, 800 years later. So clearly a consensus in opinion is not authoritative in an absolute sense, nor is it binding. Only that which is taught as a truth revealed by God is part of the OUM. Now please demonstrate where the OUM teaches BoD is a truth revealed by God as opposed to a common or universal opinion?
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +217/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #24 on: March 18, 2017, 05:16:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.






    Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion. If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

    Nevertheless, today prevails the opinion of St. Thomas, 800 years later. So clearly a consensus in opinion is not authoritative in an absolute sense, nor is it binding. Only that which is taught as a truth revealed by God is part of the OUM. Now please demonstrate where the OUM teaches BoD is a truth revealed by God as opposed to a common or universal opinion?


    When it involves approved Catholic Catechisms, and generally approved books for the clergy & laity, it is part of the ordinary magisterium. The Church CANNOT fail to notice within a generation that something is dangerous to their faith. You Feeneyites talk about how things in such public reference works go against past SOLEMN DOGMA, and effectively claim nobody raised an eyebrow in all for Christendom for centuries!  Let's face it, you have a corrupt view of the holiness and divinity of the Church. It's heretical.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #25 on: March 18, 2017, 06:14:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BumphreyHogart
    Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.






    Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion. If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

    Nevertheless, today prevails the opinion of St. Thomas, 800 years later. So clearly a consensus in opinion is not authoritative in an absolute sense, nor is it binding. Only that which is taught as a truth revealed by God is part of the OUM. Now please demonstrate where the OUM teaches BoD is a truth revealed by God as opposed to a common or universal opinion?


    When it involves approved Catholic Catechisms, and generally approved books for the clergy & laity, it is part of the ordinary magisterium. The Church CANNOT fail to notice within a generation that something is dangerous to their faith. You Feeneyites talk about how things in such public reference works go against past SOLEMN DOGMA, and effectively claim nobody raised an eyebrow in all for Christendom for centuries!  Let's face it, you have a corrupt view of the holiness and divinity of the Church. It's heretical.


    Nonsense, I don't say the Church teaches heresy, I say that individuals espouse error. The fact is that individuals can do that and promote their error too. Why do you think BoD had never been taught as a truth revealed by God yet? It's simply a common opinion, like infants damned in hellfire. Lots of people and even saints can teach it, but it doesn't mean it's not erroneous.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila


    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +217/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #26 on: March 18, 2017, 06:19:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: BumphreyHogart
    Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.



    Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion. If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

    Nevertheless, today prevails the opinion of St. Thomas, 800 years later. So clearly a consensus in opinion is not authoritative in an absolute sense, nor is it binding. Only that which is taught as a truth revealed by God is part of the OUM. Now please demonstrate where the OUM teaches BoD is a truth revealed by God as opposed to a common or universal opinion?


    When it involves approved Catholic Catechisms, and generally approved books for the clergy & laity, it is part of the ordinary magisterium. The Church CANNOT fail to notice within a generation that something is dangerous to their faith. You Feeneyites talk about how things in such public reference works go against past SOLEMN DOGMA, and effectively claim nobody raised an eyebrow in all for Christendom for centuries!  Let's face it, you have a corrupt view of the holiness and divinity of the Church. It's heretical.


    Nonsense, I don't say the Church teaches heresy, I say that individuals espouse error. The fact is that individuals can do that and promote their error too. Why do you think BoD had never been taught as a truth revealed by God yet? It's simply a common opinion, like infants damned in hellfire. Lots of people and even saints can teach it, but it doesn't mean it's not erroneous.


    Wrong. The Church is "holy". It's a mark of the Church. Holiness excluded sin even by silence. The Church cannot do that. We are talking now about teaching in catechism sent to the clergy and laity, and for generations of the faithful being born, living, and dying with the teaching, and nobody noticing that they are against previously defined solemn dogma?????

    I would rather think you insane than a downright heretic to affirm that happened.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #27 on: March 18, 2017, 07:23:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BumphreyHogart
    Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: BumphreyHogart
    Quote from: Gregory I
    Quote from: saintbosco13

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Apparently I haven't been clear enough.
    I fully believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible. I DENY what you THINK IS the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The Church hasn't defined EXACTLY what the OUM is, therefore all we have to go off of is that it is infallible.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Theologians, Catechisms, etc... are not part of the OUM because they sometimes contain errors. Any of these things can and do teach Dogma, and that's great for the education of the Faithful. While that is true, they are not fully and completely protected from error. Which is why we have various examples of errors being taught by those sources.
    I also believe that unanimous consent of the Church Fathers constitutes Dogma. The problem is you do not have unanimous consent from the fathers regarding BOD.


    You have truly crossed a line of no return with this post. Saying we don't know exactly what the OUM is? Absolute garbage. Saying that the CE, theologians, and catechisms are not part of the OUM????? They all contain error???? Enough is enough already - you're not even Catholic.

    It is very easy to get educated on these subjects; there are very many free Catholic e-books with imprimatur available, and many more can be purchased for just a few dollars. Since you don't trust ANYTHING from the Church, you don't bother to get educated on anything, and because of this you remain completely lost.

    No doubt you are here just to cause confusion, just like Stubborn. I'm officially hiding you after I send this - enough is enough.



    Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion. If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

    Nevertheless, today prevails the opinion of St. Thomas, 800 years later. So clearly a consensus in opinion is not authoritative in an absolute sense, nor is it binding. Only that which is taught as a truth revealed by God is part of the OUM. Now please demonstrate where the OUM teaches BoD is a truth revealed by God as opposed to a common or universal opinion?


    When it involves approved Catholic Catechisms, and generally approved books for the clergy & laity, it is part of the ordinary magisterium. The Church CANNOT fail to notice within a generation that something is dangerous to their faith. You Feeneyites talk about how things in such public reference works go against past SOLEMN DOGMA, and effectively claim nobody raised an eyebrow in all for Christendom for centuries!  Let's face it, you have a corrupt view of the holiness and divinity of the Church. It's heretical.


    Nonsense, I don't say the Church teaches heresy, I say that individuals espouse error. The fact is that individuals can do that and promote their error too. Why do you think BoD had never been taught as a truth revealed by God yet? It's simply a common opinion, like infants damned in hellfire. Lots of people and even saints can teach it, but it doesn't mean it's not erroneous.


    Wrong. The Church is "holy". It's a mark of the Church. Holiness excluded sin even by silence. The Church cannot do that. We are talking now about teaching in catechism sent to the clergy and laity, and for generations of the faithful being born, living, and dying with the teaching, and nobody noticing that they are against previously defined solemn dogma?????

    I would rather think you insane than a downright heretic to affirm that happened.


    You are not listening. INDIVIDUALS can teach error, not the Church. If you read the introduction to the Roman Catechism it says it is not inerrant. Same with immaculate conception and papal infallibility etc. The Church can tolerate error being taught by individuals for a time for It is not her own teaching.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline tdrev123

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 425
    • Reputation: +255/-66
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #28 on: March 18, 2017, 07:39:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Many Saints taught the Assumption of St. Joseph and others, even though in official catechisms it has said only Jesus and Mary's body were assumed into heaven.  Catechisms are fallible.  Show me where Vatican 1 says catechisms are infallible.  

    Offline tdrev123

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 425
    • Reputation: +255/-66
    • Gender: Male
    Popes on EENS
    « Reply #29 on: March 18, 2017, 07:47:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Catechism of council of trent and others taught that souls were not infused to the embryo at the moment of conception.  The official teaching for the last few centuries says they are at the moment of conception.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16