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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Not even the Code of canon law is infallible.  It is addressed to the Latin Church, not the universal church, which is a requirement for infallibility.

That's not true.  Something addressed to the Latin Church is considered universal in scope (vs. something addressed to a particular church or region).