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

Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS  (Read 3302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1125
  • Reputation: +314/-87
  • Gender: Male
Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2022, 10:33:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Ok, so you conclude there are other ways to hope to attain salvation and the sacrament of baptism is only one way.

    Do you see the contradiction between your interpretation, and the Council of Trent's famous canon on "The Sacraments In General": "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous....let him be anathema."

    To me, there is an obvious contradiction. As I see it, either your above quote is wrong, or Trent's quote is wrong.

    It is funny because obviously we both see the same teaching, yet we understand it with a completely opposite understanding. Can we at least agree on this?
     

    No, we don't agree . . . not if Trent agrees with St. Thomas, and I see no reason to think not. 

    St. Thomas on the "necessity" of the sacraments:


    Quote
    Article 1. Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?

    Objection 1. It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Question 60, Article 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.

    Objection 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Corinthians 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

    Objection 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Romans 5:10): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

    On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

    I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

    The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

    The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

    It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

    Reply to Objection 1. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.

    Reply to Objection 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.

    Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."


    Where in the above is a sine qua non necessity, as in it is impossible for justification and, at least hypothetically, salvation if one died in a state of justification without the sacrament? This necessity is compatible with the possibility of justification and salvation by BOD without contradiction - and so St. Thomas held both the necessity of the sacraments (as he explained above) and the possibility of BOD. 

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1125
    • Reputation: +314/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #76 on: January 22, 2022, 11:22:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't  highlight the most pertinent section:


    Quote
    On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Offline Francis Xavier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 13
    • Reputation: +3/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #77 on: January 22, 2022, 11:42:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But the (non-Pelagian, non-heretical) BoDers do continue to maintain that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation.  What they say though is that the Sacrament is necessary in desire.  They say it's necessary to receve in voto even if not necessarily in re.  That's a faulty argument made by many of the Dimondite anti-BoDers  You can still say the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation even if you allow for the modality of receiving it in voto.  Trent itself teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary to be restored to a state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall, but clearly holds that it can be received in voto.  About Confession Trent says, saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  Since the Church has tolerated this opinion and even made Doctors of the Church a couple of me who held that position, it would be rather presumptuous to hold that the opinion is not at least tenable.  I think it's wrong and mistaken, for reasons I have articulated elsewhere, but I don't hold that it's inherently harmful to the faith if understood as St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus held it.

    There are two important aspects regarding that: firstly, the saints you quoted lived before Vatican I, they didn't have the theological certainty we now have. In the case of St. Alphonsus, he was dead wrong, you know better than almost anyone else BoD is anything but de fide.

    Secondly, as you pointed out elsewhere, it was primarily an academic question, not too much about the doctrinal purity, unlike in our time when some of them apply it even to the Jєωs.

    Perhaps you don't want to make it a priority convincing the non-Pelagian BoDers for obvious reason, but to defend their right to hold it even when they know 1) The Church never infallibly teaches it 2) Council of Trent doesn't teach it 3) There are infallible teachings that oppose the BoD theory (eg., St. Siricius, OUM,...) would be to defend bad-will and obstinacy. Any error regarding the faith is very serious, whether it is notorious or not.

    Surely you are not OK with the old-Catholics who cling to the Thomistic view on the Immaculate Conception because "it's not inherently harmful to the faith" and "does not intrinsically undermine" honour to Our Lady, as long as they do not regard her with indifference like the Protestants?

    Offline In Principio

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +16/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #78 on: January 22, 2022, 11:49:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

    Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

    There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
    The preface you are referring to is Pope Clement XIII's encyclical, "In Dominico Agro"(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm).  The encyclical is on the uniform instruction of the Catholic faith, and the excellency and usefulness of the Roman Catechism for that purpose.  It is a revitalization of the Roman Catechism, after a time when many other types of catechisms were being created by which "weak members of the faithful were scandalized at finding that they were no longer united by the same language and topics," and "contentions arose from different ways of transmitting Catholic truth and disunity of spirit and great disagreements from rivalry."  Pope Clement XIII encourages the bishops to order that everybody who has the care of souls should use the Roman Catechism "in instructing the faithful in the Catholic truth in order to preserve unity of learning, charity, and harmony of spirits."  To facilitate this,  Pope Clement XIII announces that they will be reprinting the Roman Catechism in Rome:

    Quote
    "To make the book more easily accessible and to correct the errors which have occurred in course of production, We have ensured that the copy published by Our predecessor St. Pius V in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent is reprinted in Rome with all care. The vernacular translation of it which was made and published by order of the same St. Pius will be reprinted very soon by Our order and will finally be published."

    The bolded portion is the part you referenced.  It implies that there were some errors in some printings of the Roman Catechism, but not that these were necessarily theological or substantial errors; and not that all printings contained errors, or that the Roman Catechism itself contained errors.
     "The faithful should obey the apostolic advice not to know more than is necessary, but to know in moderation." - Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (1761) 

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11856
    • Reputation: +4615/-737
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #79 on: January 22, 2022, 01:44:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, we don't agree . . . not if Trent agrees with St. Thomas, and I see no reason to think not.
    In your quote, St. Thomas agrees with Trent two times, the second time he plainly states: "I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons....Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments."

    I mean, he says it right there, he also said the same thing I said re Divine Providence (only he said it much better) in post #26.


    Quote
    Where in the above is a sine qua non necessity, as in it is impossible for justification and, at least hypothetically, salvation if one died in a state of justification without the sacrament? This necessity is compatible with the possibility of justification and salvation by BOD without contradiction - and so St. Thomas held both the necessity of the sacraments (as he explained above) and the possibility of BOD.
    According to Trent, it is not possible to die in a state of justification without having first received the sacrament of baptism, Trent's teaching on Justification states that justification: "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration..."  So just by Trent saying this makes justification impossible without the sacrament of baptism. It's really not at all complicated.

    So we have Trent and St. Thomas both teaching that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, which, just by Trent alone saying it, regardless of St. Thomas, means that salvation is impossible without the sacraments - and we all know that a BOD is not a sacrament. And we also have Trent teaching that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament of baptism. So in the scheme of justification and salvation, because it's not a sacrament, what good is a BOD?

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30108
    • Reputation: +17668/-4435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #80 on: January 22, 2022, 02:20:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Perhaps you don't want to make it a priority convincing the non-Pelagian BoDers for obvious reason, but to defend their right to hold it even when they know 1) The Church never infallibly teaches it 2) Council of Trent doesn't teach it 3) There are infallible teachings that oppose the BoD theory (eg., St. Siricius, OUM,...) would be to defend bad-will and obstinacy. Any error regarding the faith is very serious, whether it is notorious or not.

    I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

    Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

    I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

    Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

    Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

    Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

    With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2159
    • Reputation: +1405/-597
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #81 on: January 22, 2022, 09:17:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

    Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

    I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

    Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

    Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

    Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

    With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
    I would agree with you that not everyone who believes in BOD is a heretic.  Fr Feeney believed in BOD and he believed that it would justify those who received it.  MHFM assert that Fr Feeney was not a heretic but that if he had heard the arguments as to why BOD is impossible, he would have changed his position.  I think Fr Feeney had an argument that could be reasonably held and even if he was in error, he wasn't denying any dogma whatsoever.  So even if he was wrong, and he refused correction from another theologian, he still wouldn't be a heretic.  He would just be in error.  I don't think MHFM would break communion with anyone who held Fr Feeney's position.  I don't know if they would break communion if that person refused correction from MHFM but I doubt they would.  They break communion with people who say that Jєωs and Muslims and pagans can be saved without conversion and baptism.  I don't think that is schismatic even though I don't think it is necessary either.  I think back to the case of Hypatius and Eulalius vs Nestorius.  Eulalius didn't break communion with Nestorius because he believed that although he knew Nestorius was a heretic, he should wait until Rome made a decision before breaking communion.  Hypatius broke communion immediately with Nestorius but did not break communion with Eulalius.  And when Rome made its decision on Nestorius, Hypatius was praised and he later was canonized.  Although Eulalius wasn't praised (and presumably he was even scolded) he was not excommunicated from the Church and Hypatius was in communion with him all along.  So what if Nestorius was the only means of access to the sacraments?  Also, are you really breaking communion with someone if you will receive sacraments from them but not instruction?  I don't know.  This crisis is so complicated that I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt.  And I'm not sure if I'm being as consistent as MHFM on the various issues.  On the one hand I cannot tolerate any idea that Bergoglio could possibly be the pope.  That to me is absolute insanity.  Idol-worshippers cannot be pope.  And I have broken communion with the Novus Ordo and even all of the R&R groups.  I would not go to a Mass where the priest believes Bergoglio is the pope.  I would just stay home and pray.  But the BOD issue, in my mind is different, and maybe this is where I'm not being consistent.  I see that the BOD traditionalists are just restating what was taught in approved Catholic manuals during a time when almost everyone agrees there was a legitimate pope (i.e. Pope Pius XII).  I think that deserves some leeway.  I can't expect those people to change their position just because I or MHFM show them how those manuals contradict Catholic dogma.  I think the only way they could be determined by me to be morally culpable is if a pope or an ordinary commanded them to change their position and they refused.  But I'm not going to call MHFM schismatic if they think they can make a determination of moral culpability.  These traditionalists are contradicting Catholic dogmas word-for-word.  Maybe MHFM is Hypatius and I'm Eulalius.  I'm not sure.  It would be better to be Hypatius.  Even small errors can have horrible consequences.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2159
    • Reputation: +1405/-597
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #82 on: January 22, 2022, 09:26:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also, in my own defense, I have never heard any CMRI priest preach BOD from the pulpit.  And in fact, they have not only not expelled anti-BOD people (so-called Feeneyites), they even give them public Catholic funeral Masses.  Even MHFM will receive sacraments from BOD clergy.  They just refuse to be instructed by them.  But if they never say a word about BOD during the Mass, I don't see a problem with hearing the sermon.


    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1868
    • Reputation: +750/-1125
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #83 on: January 23, 2022, 05:01:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But then there's the larger problem (for Marion as well) is that the same implication is present in the Council of Florence:

    Could you please restate "the larger problem" for me using a quote from the Council of Florence?
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1868
    • Reputation: +750/-1125
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #84 on: January 23, 2022, 05:28:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It implies that there were some errors in some printings of the Roman Catechism, but not that these were necessarily theological or substantial errors;

    Thanks for looking this up. Yes, Clement XIII gives no further detail about the errors he mentions.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11856
    • Reputation: +4615/-737
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #85 on: January 23, 2022, 09:05:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

    Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

    I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

    Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

    Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

    Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

    With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
    Weill said!
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1125
    • Reputation: +314/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #86 on: January 23, 2022, 12:02:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Could you please restate "the larger problem" for me using a quote from the Council of Florence?
    Marion,

    I'll try.

    The RC basically gives expression to what the Council strongly implies: the possibility of another remedy beyond the sacrament for salvation. You essentially say that should be rejected in fear of going to hell, which I guess means you think that position heretical.

    It's one thing for the RC to do that according to your view, since it's just a fallible statement of some committee, not infallible, and the solemn Magisterium is what you go by. This distinction - the RC being fallible - obviates any major theological problems as a result of its error (according to  your view).

    Florence, however, is infallible, so if it is erroneous as expressing or supporting the same position as the RC . . . big problem.

    Florence:


    Quote
    Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…

    The RC:


    Quote
    Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

    The Dimonds attempted to rebut Fr. Laisney's citation of the Council of Florence in defense of BOD by saying:


    Quote
    He tries to bolster this position by pointing out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.  The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.

    The RC basically verbalizes the part that Florence left silent ("stopped . . . quot[ing]"), by elaborating on the "other remedy" for adults:


    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

    And I summarized the problem for me in my post you responded to:


    Quote
    And here we have the problem: while it's true the Council of Florence stopped the quotation before St. Thomas's teaching about another remedy for adults, it's quotation of the passage and invocation of its language invites the obvious implication of what follows in St. Thomas about another remedy for adults and, rather than saying something that would clarify and disabuse one of the associated notion that there is a remedy other than baptism for adults, it lets the association hang there - sort of like Vatican II speak, or a V2 "time bomb" in the text.

    I think Florence's language clearly implied what the RC made explicit. If that is heretical . . . it's a BIG PROBLEM.



    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1868
    • Reputation: +750/-1125
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #87 on: January 23, 2022, 12:30:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To snatch an elect child away from the dominion of the devil is not the same thing as to snatch away an elect child from the Lord. Also, different from the RC, the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence does not suggest an accident crossing the plans of the Lord. Furthermore, with children just like with adults, there is a difference between imminent danger of death and general danger of death. Some deferral is acceptable even in the case of children.

    Quote
    With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.
    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм17.htm


    To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. But even if you want to read it this way, it still doesn't teach any sort of BoD. On the other hand, the Council of Trent teaches how justification works in the case of adults, and forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11856
    • Reputation: +4615/-737
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #88 on: January 23, 2022, 12:42:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. But even if you want to read it this way, it still doesn't teach any sort of BoD. On the other hand, the Council of Trent teaches how justification works in the case of adults, and forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else.
    Yes, DR is stuck bad on giving words meanings which the words do not say. He at least readily admits to this, I don't know of any other BODer who does.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30108
    • Reputation: +17668/-4435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #89 on: January 23, 2022, 12:58:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me. 

    Good point.