Author Topic: The Catechumen  (Read 1226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lastdays

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • Reputation: +67/-114
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Catechumen
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2017, 09:18:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, this is an extremely ambiguous passage.  Elsewhere St. Ambrose taught that even sincere catechumens who died without Baptism could not be saved.  Perhaps the idea was that they did not know all the details (before the days of Twitter) and that someone close to him could have baptized him while he lay dying.  Or else he envisioned a possible BoB since he was killed for turning against Arianism.  Or perhaps he received some remission of sin from his Desire and not necessarily salvation itself.  We'll never know and it's a mistake to turn this into a doctrinal statement of support for BoD.
    Agreed, and not just this passage from St. Ambrose, but certain other passages from Church Fathers are erroneously being used in an attempt to support BOD and BOB. Once they are read carefully and in context, a different picture emerges in many cases.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #61 on: November 23, 2017, 10:02:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Catechism of Trent is definitely not infallible. For example, the Church teaches that the soul and the body are united at conception. In this point the Catechism of Trent was actually heretical since the Church defined (at the Council of Vienne) that the soul is the form of the human body.

    Heretical paragraph:

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”


    Infallible Decree:

    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1, 1311-1312: “In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”


    So much for the infallibility of the Catechism of Trent. Catechisms are only infallible insofar as they agree with past dogmatic statements from Popes and General Councils and the UOM. Not every teaching in a Catechism meets these qualifications (such as the above teaching as well as the teaching on BOD). BOD is certainly not part of the UOM, since many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Some argue that BOD was taught at Trent, but Trent actually condemns the idea.
    BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point. 

    BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time. The universality requirement is synchronic, not diachronic. This is just common sense. Otherwise, the Church could never authoritatively and definitively resolve and teach on any issue where the Church Fathers, or its theologians, differed and disputed. I would say, at a minimum, BOD was taught by the UOM via the Roman Catechism. 

    So BOD is part of the UOM, and the "big guns" (St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus) support the view that it was taught infallibly at Trent. 

    You will disagree with me. Fine. 

    You will go beyond disagreeing with me and say my view is heretical, because "Trent condemns" BOD. Too bad only a few Dimondite Feeneyites know about it. The Church actually made those who taught your "heresy" doctors of its doctrine. 

    If you're right, so much for the City on the Hill, and the lamp on the lampstand. 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #62 on: November 24, 2017, 08:48:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point.
    BOD was not being taught at Trent unless of course you believe a Catholic General Council can contradict itself...

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death… so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].’”

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”


    Also it is against common sense, since desire (alone) cannot justify. In fact desire (alone) cannot even per-dispose a person for justification. In fact all of the pre-dispositions together cannot justify. That is why they are called pre-dispositions. Also, the passage in question says very clearly that it should be understood in accordance with John 3:5 "AS IT IS WRITTEN"...

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or (aut) a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

    The Latin word "aut" is used in an inclusive sense here. It must be to conform with the other dogmatic teachings regarding baptism within the Council of Trent and in general. Here is a dogmatic example of the Latin word "aut" being used in an inclusive sense...

    Latin – PASSAGE FROM POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT, DOGMATIC LETTER TO FLAVIAN
    Quote
    “… tu es, inquit, Christus filius dei vivi [Mt. 16:16], nec inmerito beatus est pronuntiatus a domino et a principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis qui per revelationem patris eundem et dei filium est confessus et Christum, quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad salutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum Iesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem credidisse.”
    TRANSLATION:
    Quote
    “You are, he said, the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Mt. 16:16], and not undeservedly was he pronounced blessed by the Lord and did he derive from the original Rock [i.e. God] the solid character of both [its] virtue and [its] name, [he] who through the revelation of the Father confessed that the same [i.e. Jesus] was both the Son of God and the Christ, because one of these [truths] received [i.e. admitted] without the other was unprofitable to salvation, and it was of equal danger to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without [being] man or man only without [being] God.”
    Obviously you would have to reject both errors here, or you would fall into heresy.


    Quote
    BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time.
    To be part of the UOM,  BOD must have been taught by all, always and everywhere.  "At some point in time" doesn't cut it, unless it was taught ex Cathedra (which it was not). Also, all means "all" the Popes and Church Fathers. As I said many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Pope St. Siricius also rejected the idea. It also should be noted that "tolerated" does not mean "taught".


    Quote
    The universality requirement is synchronic, not diachronic. This is just common sense. Otherwise, the Church could never authoritatively and definitively resolve and teach on any issue where the Church Fathers, or its theologians, differed and disputed. I would say, at a minimum, BOD was taught by the UOM via the Roman Catechism.
    You don't not know what you are talking about AT ALL. Because something was taught in the Roman Catechism does not therefore make it part of the UOM. If that was the case the UOM would be fallible (since the Roman Catechism taught heresy) as I showed in my last post. As I said, BOD would have had to have been believed by all, always and everywhere. BOD most definitely does not fall into this category.


    Quote
    So BOD is part of the UOM, and the "big guns" (St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus) support the view that it was taught infallibly at Trent.
    Doctors are fallible. In general their doctrine was considered to be a great benefit to the Church. They were considered to be holy men. This is why they were made saints and doctors. A doctor is not immune from making a heretical proposition (provided he was not in full knowledge of the doctrine in question). There is no Church teaching that says this. Obviously this was a popular opinion during their lives. Certain Fathers at the Council were most likely pushing the idea (which is why this false opinion ended up in post-Trent Catechisms. This one of the reasons why quite a few theologians were inclined to believe the false idea. The fact remains that the Holy Ghost prevented the false theory from being taught at Trent.

    Quote
    You will disagree with me. Fine.
    Anyone who knows what UOM actually is, will also disagree with you.

    Quote
    You will go beyond disagreeing with me and say my view is heretical, because "Trent condemns" BOD. Too bad only a few Dimondite Feeneyites know about it. The Church actually made those who taught your "heresy" doctors of its doctrine.
    You have a faulty understanding of the UOM and a misguided notion that saints and doctors cannot make a heretical proposition (materially speaking). The basis of your argument is founded on sand (2 errors in particular).

    Quote
    If you're right, so much for the City on the Hill, and the lamp on the lampstand.
    The "City on the hill" and "Lamp on the lampstand" proclaim the dogmas and traditions of the Church. Not the false ideas of theologians (even if they are made doctors).
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #63 on: November 24, 2017, 09:11:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point.

    That's the thing, though; there's no evidence that the passage in the Catechism was attempting to interpret Trent or whether it was just a general treatment on the subject.  So you can't even read that as some official interpretation of Trent.  If the passage in the Catechism does refer to BoD, however -- and there's room for doubt IMO as I've seen the Latin -- then it's obvious that the authors of the Catechism did not see BoD as incompatible with the teaching of Trent.  But that's really as far as we can take it.

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #64 on: November 24, 2017, 10:16:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lastdays,


    Quote

    Quote

    Quote
    BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time.

    To be part of the UOM,  BOD must have been taught by all, always and everywhere.  "At some point in time" doesn't cut it, unless it was taught ex Cathedra (which it was not). Also, all means "all" the Popes and Church Fathers. As I said many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Pope St. Siricius also rejected the idea. It also should be noted that "tolerated" does not mean "taught".

    On what authority do you say this? Yours? The Dimonds? You're not much more than their parrot, repeating their arguments, and evidently buying them as your authority, and you brand all  others who do not follow your private interpretation as heretics.

    I'll offer you a reasoned analysis, Cardinal Franzelin by way of our member, Mithrandylan:


    Quote
    "If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
     

    a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
     
    b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
    i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
    ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
     
    By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecumenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers."


    *****The rest of the quote is available here:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-uom-(bishop-williamson-v-bishop-sanborn)/msg565787/#msg565787

    You do the same thing with the Council of Vienne, simply parroting the Dimond argument, and make the absurd claim that the Council "proves" that the Roman Catechism taught "heresy."

    So now not only is "heresy" taught by St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, but by the Church in the Roman Catechism?

    You're a soul going down a very bad road if you can flip off allegations of "heresy" by doctors and the Church herself in a universal catechism of the ecclesia docens.

    The Roman Catechism followed St. Thomas is teaching the the rational soul was infused into the body sometime after conception. That is not "heresy," unless you happen to think the contrary later opinion of theologians to be an infallible teaching of the Church. How ironic coming from you, who constantly claims others are elevating theologians to the level of the Magisterium! But then again that would be a minor inconsistency in light of some of your other absurdities.  

    The Council of Vienne merely defines that the soul is the form of the body. St. Thomas teaches this, but also teaches that the rational soul is infused into the body after conception, and the Roman Catechism follows Thomas. Here's the CE from the entry on "Soul":


    Quote
    "St. Thomas's doctrine is briefly as follows:

    • the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienneof 1311;
    • the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
    • though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
    • the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence."

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

    You apparently don't do any independent research or do any independent thinking but merely adopt the Dimonds' slip shod arguments. St. Thomas taught that the rational soul was the form of the body. The Roman Catechism taught in accordance with St. Thomas, and did not teach that the rational soul was not the form of the body. You assume that teaching violates the Council of Vienne, which doesn't address the issue of the timing of the rational soul's infusion into the body, only saying it's the form.

    You repeatedly show yourself as not competent to handle the nuances of complicated issues like this, and neither are the Dimonds apparently - whose parrot you are. And so now St. Thomas and the Church itself - and not only St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine - is teaching "heresy." And you make that allegation without, apparently, any hesitation - or else you'd have done some independent thought and research.

    You are incapable of thinking through these issues, and merely repeat the mantras of your schismatic instructors.

    Your pompous, dogmatic bloviatings about the "heresies" of other Catholics, including saints and doctors and in universal catechisms, are an embarrassment to the Feeneyite cause.
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #65 on: November 24, 2017, 10:22:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's the thing, though; there's no evidence that the passage in the Catechism was attempting to interpret Trent or whether it was just a general treatment on the subject.  So you can't even read that as some official interpretation of Trent.  If the passage in the Catechism does refer to BoD, however -- and there's room for doubt IMO as I've seen the Latin -- then it's obvious that the authors of the Catechism did not see BoD as incompatible with the teaching of Trent.  But that's really as far as we can take it.
    It didn't cite Trent so you can say there is no direct evidence. That's fine. 

    St. Robert cited Trent Session VI, Chapter 4 as supporting BOD. Of course, he could be wrong. He is, however, support for that view. I tend to agree with him - that's all. 

    There is room for discussion among Catholics in good faith, and you are an example of that, as I hope I may be. 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #66 on: November 24, 2017, 10:23:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • While I agree that there isn't heresy in the Roman Catechism, it's also clearly not infallible.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #67 on: November 24, 2017, 10:33:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It didn't cite Trent so you can say there is no direct evidence. That's fine.

    St. Robert cited Trent Session VI, Chapter 4 as supporting BOD. Of course, he could be wrong. He is, however, support for that view. I tend to agree with him - that's all.

    There is room for discussion among Catholics in good faith, and you are an example of that, as I hope I may be.

    Even if you think that Trent VI.4 is referring to BoD, the statement there falls about as far short of a definition as you can get.  Trent never teaches that Desire ALONE can suffice for justification ... just that it cannot happen without it.  Trent teaches that Desire is a necessary cause but falls short of declaring it a sufficient cause ... due to the "cannot happen without" language.  Trent does not positively teach that justification (and then salvation) CAN happen WITH DESIRE ALONE ... as Trent does for Confession.  Not to mention, Trent makes NO mention of how it works and the conditions necessary for it to work.  Consequently, I've probably heard half a dozen different explanation of the requirements for BoD.  That's prima facie evidence that the Church has never defined it.  Really the greatest common denominator among BoDers is this notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

    I read Trent as teaching that BOTH BAPTISM AND THE DESIRE are necessary for justification.  Why?  Because of the passage immediately after it, the citation from Scripture which says that one cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.  Trent was making an analogy between laver:Sacrament::desire:Holy Ghost (if you know analogy punctuation -- if not I'll explain it).  So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again?  That doesn't make sense to me.  I used to believe in BoD for Catechumens ... because I thought it was in Trent ... but then I sat down and read the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it jumped out at me that Trent was teaching no such thing.

    Language is similar to this:  "You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."  This is ambiguous on its own.  It could mean that you can play if you have one or the other (BoDer interpretation of Trent) or else that you can't play with either one missing (my reading of it).  But when Trent follows this up with citing as Scriptural proof "water AND the Holy Ghost" ... that immediately disambiguates it in favor of how I read it.


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #68 on: November 24, 2017, 11:05:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Even if you think that Trent VI.4 is referring to BoD, the statement there falls about as far short of a definition as you can get.  Trent never teaches that Desire ALONE can suffice for justification ... just that it cannot happen without it.  Trent teaches that Desire is a necessary cause but falls short of declaring it a sufficient cause ... due to the "cannot happen without" language.  Trent does not positively teach that justification (and then salvation) CAN happen WITH DESIRE ALONE ... as Trent does for Confession.  Not to mention, Trent makes NO mention of how it works and the conditions necessary for it to work.  Consequently, I've probably heard half a dozen different explanation of the requirements for BoD.  That's prima facie evidence that the Church has never defined it.  Really the greatest common denominator among BoDers is this notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

    I read Trent as teaching that BOTH BAPTISM AND THE DESIRE are necessary for justification.  Why?  Because of the passage immediately after it, the citation from Scripture which says that one cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.  Trent was making an analogy between laver:Sacrament::desire:Holy Ghost (if you know analogy punctuation -- if not I'll explain it).  So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again?  That doesn't make sense to me.  I used to believe in BoD for Catechumens ... because I thought it was in Trent ... but then I sat down and read the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it jumped out at me that Trent was teaching no such thing.

    Language is similar to this:  "You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."  This is ambiguous on its own.  It could mean that you can play if you have one or the other (BoDer interpretation of Trent) or else that you can't play with either one missing (my reading of it).  But when Trent follows this up with citing as Scriptural proof "water AND the Holy Ghost" ... that immediately disambiguates it in favor of how I read it.
    Laudislaus,

    Please go ahead and explain "analogy punctuation."

    I agree Trent didn't "define" BOD, and certainly a definition is needed, as witnessed by the extremes the concept has been taken to with "implicit" desire. However, I disagree and find the concept expressed to this extent: it identifies the possibility of justification with a desire for the sacrament with a perfect contrition.

    I argue that not only on the basis of the universal interpretation of just about every theologian, saint and doctor - that certainly helps and is an indicator that, at the least, one is on good ground. There is variance of opinion on the full parameters of BOD, but not on the concept, with the aforementioned universally accept.

    Trent also uses an analogy between penance and baptism, thus: "this sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism itself is necessary for salvation for those not yet regenerated." Session XIV on Penance, Chapter 2 - citing also Canon 6 on Penance, which anathematizes anyone who says Penance "is not necessary for salvation" for those fallen by "divine law."

    Obviously this "necessity" can be met by desire for the sacrament, since Trent affirmatively states that with regard to Penance. One can also argue that desire for baptism with contrition can also provide for initial justification as the sacraments operate similarly with a similar necessity in their respective spheres. The chapter on the "difference" between baptism and penance, Session XIV on Penance, Chapter 2, doesn't say that a different is that the sacrament of baptism must be received, which I think would be a glaring omission.  

    Canon 4 on the sacraments in general also proscribes salvation by faith alone without the sacraments "or without the desire of them."

    I agree a definition is needed for BOD - much confusion and even "heresy" (my opinion) has sprung from it. The Church has taught things which needed greater elaboration in light of misinterpretations and heresies that have sprung up.

    I do, however, disagree with your reading of Trent.

    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #69 on: November 24, 2017, 11:09:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Laudislaus,


    Quote
    So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again?  That doesn't make sense to me. 
    Again, and I know you agree with this - the "water" (the sacrament) is necessary to a desire for the sacrament (the water). 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12428
    • Reputation: +6447/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #70 on: November 24, 2017, 11:19:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously this "necessity" can be met by desire for the sacrament, since Trent affirmatively states that with regard to Penance.

    Right, and that's why I argued with the Dimondites on the other thread that BoD is not a heresy which denies the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

    I'll write more later as I have some errands to run.

    From the language itself, there are in fact two possible readings.

    WITHOUT (SACRAMENT OR DESIRE)

    WITHOUT SACRAMENT OR THE DESIRE (i.e. cannot without Sacrament and cannot without desire)

    Even IF you read it the first way, as the proponents of BoD do, it's STILL a statement of necessary cause and not sufficient cause.  AT BEST the sufficiency of DESIRE could be read as IMPLIED by the text.

    I go with the second reading because of the context and the Scriptural quote that follows.  I'll write more on that later.

    Let's get back to the baseball analogy:

    WITHOUT (BAT OR BALL)

    WITHOUT BAT OR WITHOUT BALL (i.e. cannot without bat and cannot without ball)

    ... just look at the Scriptural passage following "as it is written".  Trent is using "water AND the Holy Spirit" as proof text for "water OR the Holy Spirit"?  That's preposterous to me.




    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #71 on: November 24, 2017, 01:10:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To be part of the UOM,  BOD must have been taught by all, always and everywhere.  "At some point in time" doesn't cut it, unless it was taught ex Cathedra (which it was not). Also, all means "all" the Popes and Church Fathers. As I said many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Pope St. Siricius also rejected the idea. It also should be noted that "tolerated" does not mean "taught".

    On what authority do you say this? Yours? The Dimonds? You're not much more than their parrot, repeating their arguments, and evidently buying them as your authority, and you brand all  others who do not follow your private interpretation as heretics.
    I never claimed that I have any authority, nor do I have any affiliation with the Dimonds. Church Dogma is the Authority. It needs no interpretation. JUST READ IT.

    Quote
    I'll offer you a reasoned analysis, Cardinal Franzelin by way of our member, Mithrandylan :

    If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
     

    a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
     
    b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
    i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
    ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
     
    By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecumenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers."

    Cardinal Franzelin, Mithrandylan and St. Vincent are not authorities. A Catholic follows Church dogma and tradition. Also, the present consensus of the Church means absolutely nothing. Historical facts prove this. Just off the top of my head, the teachings regarding unbaptized infants and the baptism of heretics were believed by the majority in their day, and were ultimately overturned by Popes.

    Quote
    You do the same thing with the Council of Vienne, simply parroting the Dimond argument, and make the absurd claim that the Council "proves" that the Roman Catechism taught "heresy."
    You keep bringing up the Dimonds, instead of just answering the argument. You are saying that it was an absurd claim. On the contrary, YOU are making the absurd claim. Did not the Council of Vienne dogmatically state that the soul was the form of the body BEFORE the Catechism of Trent? Obviously it did. Did not the Roman Catechism say that the body can exist for a time before the soul is united to it? Therefore we have a heretical proposition stated in the Roman Catechism.

    Quote
    So now not only is "heresy" taught by St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, but by the Church in the Roman Catechism?
    Again, not answering the arguments. None of the above are infallible or immune from making a heretical proposition. If so, provide EVIDENCE. I could care less about the opinion of men.


    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #72 on: November 25, 2017, 02:09:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quotes from Tornpage
    Quote
    The Council of Vienne merely defines that the soul is the form of the body. St. Thomas teaches this, but also teaches that the rational soul is infused into the body after conception, and the Roman Catechism follows Thomas. Here's the CE from the entry on "Soul":
    "But". A small word with a big meaning. The Council of Vienne did not include this distinction in its dogmatic decree. The Roman Catechism should have followed the dogmatic decree (as written) instead of a fallible man. Likewise in the case of BOD.


    Quote
    You apparently don't do any independent research or do any independent thinking but merely adopt the Dimonds' slip shod arguments. St. Thomas taught that the rational soul was the form of the body. The Roman Catechism taught in accordance with St. Thomas, and did not teach that the rational soul was not the form of the body. You assume that teaching violates the Council of Vienne, which doesn't address the issue of the timing of the rational soul's infusion into the body, only saying it's the form.
    As Catholics we just read the dogma. If the Holy Ghost wishes to add exceptions and distinctions they will be included. We don't import them, based on what men think (even saintly ones).

    Quote
    You repeatedly show yourself as not competent to handle the nuances of complicated issues like this, and neither are the Dimonds apparently - whose parrot you are.
    No, you actually show that you are unable to understand even the basics of Catholicism. You like to seem smart, but in the process you become stupid. You also seem to have an infatuation with the Dimond Brothers. As I said, I have no affiliation with them.  I merely base my arguments on Catholic principles using a foundation of dogma and tradition. The faith comes before any personal feelings I have towards certain people.


    Quote
    And so now St. Thomas and the Church itself - and not only St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine - is teaching "heresy." And you make that allegation without, apparently, any hesitation - or else you'd have done some independent thought and research.
    I've done the research. I'm only interested in the opinions of fallible theologians insofar as they agree with dogma and tradition.

    Quote
    You are incapable of thinking through these issues, and merely repeat the mantras of your schismatic instructors.
    My schismatic instructors? I merely follow the dogmas and traditions of the Catholic Church. If you consider those to have come from schismatics, then what does that make you?

    Quote
    Your pompous, dogmatic bloviatings about the "heresies" of other Catholics, including saints and doctors and in universal catechisms, are an embarrassment to the Feeneyite cause.
    The Feeneyite cause? Fr. Feeney believed one can be justified without the sacrament of baptism. I don't agree. I do believe he was a lot closer to the truth then supporters of BOD, however. Also, there is no embarrassment in pointing out a heretical proposition coming from a fallible Catholic source. In fact it's the duty of a Catholic to expose these things. Doubting and/or denying dogma (in those who call themselves Catholic) is truly the embarrassment.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

     

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