Author Topic: The Roman Catechism (Read 9594 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2010, 09:12:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Not worth my time, Caminus. I'd much rather spend the time praying for some poor lost soul to find the Catholic Church.

I only post for the sake of those who might be sincerely looking for the truth on this matter--not for you.

And why should they read you over Jimmy Akin? Those sincerely looking for truth should be reading their catechism and approved Catholic authorities, not laymen posting here or anywhere else.

Caminus · « **Reply #46 on:** June 08, 2010, 09:39:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Not worth my time, Caminus. I'd much rather spend the time praying for some poor lost soul to find the Catholic Church.

I only post for the sake of those who might be sincerely looking for the truth on this matter--not for you.

How ironic would it be if that poor soul were you.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #47 on:** June 09, 2010, 01:33:13 PM »

I find it hilarious that we're arguing about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen potentially.

Don't you find it ridiculous that we're arguing about something that doesn't affect US at all?

Caminus, you're not a judge at the end. I don't have to face you, nor will I have to face any human being at my particular judgment but Jesus Christ.

And you're encouraging an argument about a hypothetical?

Really, can't you see how stupid this is?

Just let God worry about this mess. Why do we even have to think about it?

This argument is straight from the devil. Can't you just leave it alone?

Pray for those who are not baptized, so that there never will be a one that will have to stand in front of the judgment seat searching for the faith, and have not the wedding garment of the Sacrament of Baptism on their soul, rather than argue about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** June 09, 2010, 01:47:16 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I find it hilarious that we're arguing about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen potentially.

Don't you find it ridiculous that we're arguing about something that doesn't affect US at all?

Caminus, you're not a judge at the end. I don't have to face you, nor will I have to face any human being at my particular judgment but Jesus Christ.

And you're encouraging an argument about a hypothetical?

Really, can't you see how stupid this is?

Just let God worry about this mess. Why do we even have to think about it?

This argument is straight from the devil. Can't you just leave it alone?

Pray for those who are not baptized, so that there never will be a one that will have to stand in front of the judgment seat searching for the faith, and have not the wedding garment of the Sacrament of Baptism on their soul, rather than argue about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen.

We are not the ones who are obsessed with it. :rolleyes:

Alexandria · « **Reply #49 on:** June 09, 2010, 01:54:31 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
Not worth my time, Caminus. I'd much rather spend the time praying for some poor lost soul to find the Catholic Church.

I only post for the sake of those who might be sincerely looking for the truth on this matter--not for you.

And why should they read you over Jimmy Akin? Those sincerely looking for truth should be reading their catechism and approved Catholic authorities, not laymen posting here or anywhere else.

SJB! Jimmy Akin????

Caminus · « **Reply #50 on:** June 09, 2010, 02:03:22 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I find it hilarious that we're arguing about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen potentially.

Don't you find it ridiculous that we're arguing about something that doesn't affect US at all?

Caminus, you're not a judge at the end. I don't have to face you, nor will I have to face any human being at my particular judgment but Jesus Christ.

And you're encouraging an argument about a hypothetical?

Really, can't you see how stupid this is?

Just let God worry about this mess. Why do we even have to think about it?

This argument is straight from the devil. Can't you just leave it alone?

Pray for those who are not baptized, so that there never will be a one that will have to stand in front of the judgment seat searching for the faith, and have not the wedding garment of the Sacrament of Baptism on their soul, rather than argue about something that may not ever have happened, and may not ever happen.

When a Catholic kicks against the goad, terrible consequences ensue. I don't care which doctrine you may pick to demean or deny, whether you like it or not, it all ends the same. No Catholic should tolerate such doctrinal selectivity. In this case, the double-standard is apparent. So long as one claims to be a "traditional" Catholic, they get a free pass, especially since they know Latin. It is a form of human respect.

I'm about tired of the term "traditional" Catholic. It deceives Catholics who are still very imperfect and gives them a false sense of security.

The arrogance is overwelming. A doctrine is presented from various sources and is simply blithely dismissed. Quote a Father, we get a commentary on his subjective consciousness. Quote a Saint who received revelations from God, we get the comment that she was deluded. Quote a Doctor, and we get nothing but irreverent condescension. Quote a theologian, we get the comment that they're not infallible. Quote an authorative catechism, and we get the comment that they were blathering about something else. Quote the liturgy, we get the same comment. Quote a Roman Pontiff, we get more of the same.

After a while, one begins to wonder if the man thinks that the sources of dogma are worth anything at all or even the Catholic Church for that matter. He might as well be a revolutionary modernist.

SJB · « **Reply #51 on:** June 09, 2010, 02:11:24 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Not worth my time, Caminus. I'd much rather spend the time praying for some poor lost soul to find the Catholic Church.

I only post for the sake of those who might be sincerely looking for the truth on this matter--not for you.

And why should they read you over Jimmy Akin? Those sincerely looking for truth should be reading their catechism and approved Catholic authorities, not laymen posting here or anywhere else.

SJB! Jimmy Akin????

Yes. There are, of course, other reasons for not reading Mr. Akin. :smile:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** June 10, 2010, 05:35:27 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

When a Catholic kicks against the goad, terrible consequences ensue. I don't care which doctrine you may pick to demean or deny, whether you like it or not, it all ends the same.

When a Catholic raises his personal opinion on a subject to the level of dogma, terrible consequences ensue (cf. the Dimonds, CM, fk, and Caminus).

Raoul76 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 10, 2010, 06:09:52 AM »

Caminus said:

Quote

After a while, one begins to wonder if the man thinks that the sources of dogma are worth anything at all or even the Catholic Church for that matter. He might as well be a revolutionary modernist.

Caminus, don't you think that if BoD were a dogma we'd have at least ONE clear statement from a Pope about it?

Granted, you don't believe it's a dogma. You have said it was a doctrine because of the consensus of theologians ( at least I think that was you, please correct me if I'm wrong ). The consensus of the theologians is impressive, but think of limbo. Aquinas' concept of limbo was a complete break with the UNIVERSALLY held opinion that unbaptized babies suffer hellfire. St. Bellarmine himself admitted the awkwardness of the situation. You have two blocks of theological consensuses -- consensi? -- both of which oppose each other, one post-Augustine, and one post-Aquinas.

When it comes to where unbaptized babies go after death, what must be believed? Only this: That they do not go to heaven or a middle place. That is the dogma that must be upheld. Whether they suffer hellfire, or have eternal happiness in limbo and somehow are connected to God while in hell ( not Aquinas' greatest moment, it seems to me ), the two opinions both steer clear of heresy, and neither one is dogma or doctrine. Just OPINION.

It is the same with baptism of desire and implicit faith. What is abundantly clear is that something has held back the Popes from making any kind of final declaration about EENS. What are we to infer from this? That there is a certain amount of theological speculation that is allowed, as long as certain barriers are not crossed, that the necessity of belonging to the Church is "not reduced to a meaningless formula." What is the barrier? Unfortunately, it is more flexible at this time than any of us would like, but I think we can all see that it is crossed by the idea that a false religion can be the means of salvation.

I do think the theory of implicit faith has led to trouble, but then again, so has the Trinity. Unless people believed in the Trinity properly at one time, there could never have been Arians who believed in it improperly. This is aimed at Ladislaus -- maybe we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by saying that all theories of salvation by implicit faith are wrong. Not all of those who believe in implicit faith are Pelagians or semi-Pelagians as I once thought, but someone like Garrigou-Legrange comes very, very close to it. So we just have to remain on our guards.

SJB · « **Reply #54 on:** June 10, 2010, 08:49:19 AM »

Consider the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, where the apparent conflict was between the universality of the Fall and the consequent universality of the Redemption, on the one hand, and Our Blessed Lady's freedom from original sin on the other, both given in the sources of Revelation.

The truth was that these were just two doctrines, and the solution to the apparent conflict was NOT to deny one or the other.

SJB · « **Reply #55 on:** June 10, 2010, 08:56:14 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Unfortunately, it is more flexible at this time than any of us would like, but I think we can all see that it is crossed by the idea that a false religion can be the means of salvation.

Yes, but some have said that this "flexibility" has led to a denial of EENS, that the Church has led everybody into heresy, which is impossible.

SJB · « **Reply #56 on:** June 10, 2010, 10:31:40 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus, don't you think that if BoD were a dogma we'd have at least ONE clear statement from a Pope about it?

You mean a defined dogma, right? There are doctrines less than defined dogma that are not opinions.

Pope Pius IX made this clear in Tuas Libenter.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #57 on:** June 10, 2010, 07:31:13 PM »

Quote from: SJB

You mean a defined dogma, right? There are doctrines less than defined dogma that are not opinions.

BoD is not one of those.

Raoul's quite right about the status quaestionis here regarding BoD. I have problems very similar to nαzιanzen and Chrysostom regarding BoD. See the other thread where I quote them. You can see that the Fathers gave much more importance to the Baptismal character than BoD proponents do. It's much more than a badge of honor but is what grants human beings the faculties capable of sustaining the supernatural virtues.

And I have TREMENDOUS problems with the implicit BoD of the "noble savage". I do consider that Pelagianism.