CathInfo.com

How comes it you ACQUIRED four ignores since Saturday?

 :cool:

Blame The Roman Catechism...

That chart you posted, parentsfortruth, struck me as bunkum, so I looked it up and it is from a Jesuit in 1951.  Why do people, trads and sedes even, act as if they can trust moral theology books from the eve of Vatican II by clergy who went along with Vatican II?  It's madness!

It's a mortal sin to question the legitimacy of Pius XI?  Hm, I wonder if there is any vested interest in that example... Not if you think he stepped beyond the bounds of what a Pope can do, or if you think he had an invalid election, there isn't.  Sedes like John Daly, who posted this list, believe that John XXIII was not Pope but he, just like Pius XI or Pius XII, was universally accepted.  What is the difference?  

Who was it that first began to say that elections of Popes are "historically certain"?  I've heard SJB using this logic, and it has always triggered an alarm bell.  Please find me one theologian before the 20th century who has employed this argument, SJB.  I wonder if is nothing but an attempt to scare and pressure people into going along with the Vatican II Popes that were at that time being prepared for.  The infiltration of the Church is so deep, there is no doubt that many learned ( but twisted ) theologians were harbingers of the "new way."  

Because this did not happen overnight -- there are severe problems with the papacies of Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII, three Popes whose legitimacy I accept but who, I believe, may have been working against the Church or enemies of the Church in their political decisions.  I would classify them as perhaps ushering in the era of Vatican II, smoothing the road to Vatican II.  How else can you explain the smothering of Action Francaise or the Cristero debacle?  Pius XI was an absolutely horrible Pope, and if someone questioned his papacy because of these decisions, it would be hard to call them a heretic.  I have questioned the papacy of Pius XII but only questioned it -- I don't say he's not Pope.  He did not cross a line as clearly as Paul VI did by promoting Vatican II, which I believe is proof a posteriori that Paul VI was not Pope.

Also, how can the existence of a papacy as "historically certain" be reconciled with the fact that the election of a heretic to the papacy is null and void according to cuм Ex Apostolatus?  It doesn't work.  I don't like the emphasis on immediately pre-VII theologians that you and Johns Lane and Daly traffic in, SJB.  There is something wrong about Bellarmine Forums, something that always bothered me, and I think this is it.

As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, you have to make a certain inference to say that it teaches baptism of desire.  By saying that adults are not in the same danger as infants when it comes to baptism, it might just be saying that adults do not tend to die as suddenly and unpredictably as infants.  If it were really as clear that Trent teaches BoD that some people want it to be, we wouldn't all be having this argument interminably.  I am a believer in baptism of desire, but I cannot say that Trent DEFINITELY teaches it.

I know some people hate to admit that the Council of Trent was ambiguous, or they think suggesting such a thing is tantamount to heresy, but if you read St. Alphonsus' book about Trent, you will see proof positive that the Trent Fathers were DELIBERATELY ambiguous sometimes and wanted to leave certain questions open.  This is a fact.  Trent was sometimes strategically ambiguous.

John Daly says --

For Mr Dimond, this is just proof that Doctors of the Church are not infallible and can err. The possibility that Dimond himself is not infallible and can err fails to occur to his bloated ego. What is clear is that St Alphonsus, not misled by any supposedly inexact translations, understands the Trent text in the sense that Dimond (a non-Latinist) rejects and that St Alphonsus holds as de fide a proposition that Dimond emphatically rejects as a heresy.

Those who believe baptism of desire is heresy, are not heretics, but possibly schismatic.  

"And while the Doctors of the Church are not individually infallible (only collectively) it is quite certain that the Church does not accord the accolade of Doctor to persons who represent heresy as dogma and dogma as heresy. Plainly any humble, prudent and docile Catholic will adhere to St Alphonsus, not to Dimond - not that the Trent text is in any way ambiguous.

Don't try to hypnotically flatter me into taking your point of view, Mr. Daly.  "Plainly, any humble, prudent and docile Catholic..." Ugh.  This is the classic passive-aggressive intellectual bullying that was so nauseatingly prevalent on Bellarmine Forums.  

St. Alphonsus says that Trent is sometimes ambiguous.  He does not think this particular passage is ambiguous -- but he could be wrong.  It has been shown that St. Alphonsus was wrong on certain things, he made mistakes.  Yes, I know that when he was canonized, they said his books were inspected twenty times and were found free of all error, but we are not obligated to believe that.  We are only obligated to believe he is a saint who is in heaven.  A saint who is in heaven can make mistakes or change their mind during their life.  If St. Alphonsus were absolutely immaculate and perfect, then he would be greater than St. Thomas and St. Augustine, and I hardly think this is the case.

Baptism of desire is not a dogma.  The Church has never clearly said that it must be believed by everyone.  Yes, many theologians have taught it, but between the times of Augustine and Aquinas, every single theologian taught that babies who died unbaptized were burning in hell, in the flames.  Wouldn't you  call this a "theological certainty," SJB?  By your logic, if the bulk of theologians all teach something it becomes dogma. Why don't you believe it then, that babies are burning in hell, heretic?