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?

SJB said:

Is the existence of the papacy of Pope Pius V a dogmatic fact? Is it "historically certain", as you put it?

Explain how it CANNOT be certain. cuм Ex Apostolatus isn't going to help you here.

I always write these long posts and get two-line smokescreen answers from you.

( 1 ) I was not the one who said that the legitimacy of a certain papacy is "historically certain."  That was Father Sixtus Cartechini who used that term, and you have used a variant of it yourself many times.

( 2 ) I asked YOU when this idea of the "historical certainty" of a Pope became common currency among theologians.  I am guessing it is a 20th century innovation.  You didn't address that.

( 3 ) During the Great Western Schism, it obviously was not theologically certain to St. Vincent Ferrer who the real Pope was.

( 4 ) If someone had an objection to Pius V the way they did to Honorius, then it would not be theologically certain that he is Pope.  Do you think Honorius' papacy was a theological certainty at the time when they were denouncing him as a heretic?  Yet when he was elected, he was unanimously accepted as Pope, was he not?  

Savonarola suggested that Alexander VI was not Pope, and no one called him a heretic.  Not because of that, anyway.  And he didn't have anywhere near the good reasons that someone questioning Pius XII might have.  Pius XII, manifestly, was paving the way for Vatican Council II, relaxing disciplines, changing the liturgy, etc.  

A true Pope cannot promote discipline that is harmful to the Church.  A very, very good argument can be made that NFP is incredibly harmful to the Church, looking at its fruits -- but the counterargument can be made that it is only abuses to NFP that are harmful, and that if people had stuck to Pius XII's "rigorous" guidelines ( excuse the sarcasm ) then we wouldn't be seeing these problems.  It's the same debate we hear over and over about the Novus Ordo:  Is it INTRINSICALLY harmful or is it just that it has been abused and perverted?  There are good arguments on both sides.  

So I leave this for the future restored Church to decide, until then accepting Pius XII's papacy.  I only say that Pius XII is not the hero that people think; not by a longshot.  The saintly image he has among trads is a joke.  He used the exact same double-minded, mind-control technique as Benedict.  There are countless examples:  Just to take NFP again, at one point he said it could only be used in an emergency, but then said the limits of its use are "indeed very wide."  So excuse me for blaming HIM for the confusion around NFP rather than the laity who abuse it -- because the fault lays with HIM and his completely unclear teaching. We are all tearing each other up but ultimately the leadership, for many years, has been either faulty or completely illegitimate.  

SJB said:

Quote

Is the existence of the papacy of Pope Pius V a dogmatic fact? Is it "historically certain", as you put it?

Explain how it CANNOT be certain. cuм Ex Apostolatus isn't going to help you here.

I always write these long posts and get two-line smokescreen answers from you.

( 1 ) I was not the one who said that the legitimacy of a certain papacy is "historically certain."  That was Father Sixtus Cartechini who used that term, and you have used a variant of it yourself many times.

( 2 ) I asked YOU when this idea of the "historical certainty" of a Pope became common currency among theologians.  I am guessing it is a 20th century innovation.  You didn't address that.

( 3 ) During the Great Western Schism, it obviously was not theologically certain to St. Vincent Ferrer who the real Pope was.

( 4 ) If someone had an objection to Pius V the way they did to Honorius, then it would not be theologically certain that he is Pope.  Do you think Honorius' papacy was a theological certainty at the time when they were denouncing him as a heretic?  Yet when he was elected, he was unanimously accepted as Pope, was he not?  

Savonarola suggested that Alexander VI was not Pope, and no one called him a heretic.  Not because of that, anyway.  And he didn't have anywhere near the good reasons that someone questioning Pius XII might have.  Pius XII, manifestly, was paving the way for Vatican Council II, relaxing disciplines, changing the liturgy, etc.  

A true Pope cannot promote discipline that is harmful to the Church.  A very, very good argument can be made that NFP is incredibly harmful to the Church, looking at its fruits -- but the counterargument can be made that it is only abuses to NFP that are harmful, and that if people had stuck to Pius XII's "rigorous" guidelines ( excuse the sarcasm ) then we wouldn't be seeing these problems.  It's the same debate we hear over and over about the Novus Ordo:  Is it INTRINSICALLY harmful or is it just that it has been abused and perverted?  There are good arguments on both sides.  

So I leave this for the future restored Church to decide, until then accepting Pius XII's papacy.  I only say that Pius XII is not the hero that people think; not by a longshot.  The saintly image he has among trads is a joke.  He used the exact same double-minded, mind-control technique as Benedict.  There are countless examples:  Just to take NFP again, at one point he said it could only be used in an emergency, but then said the limits of its use are "indeed very wide."  So excuse me for blaming HIM for the confusion around NFP rather than the laity who abuse it -- because the fault lays with HIM and his completely unclear teaching. We are all tearing each other up but ultimately the leadership, for many years, has been either faulty or completely illegitimate.  

Look Mike, I don't have time to type long responses nor do I need to write long responses. Yes, the papacy during a crisis such as this is not clear to say the least ... but WHY do you accept this dogmatic fact of Pius V and NOT accept it of Pius XI?

Do you guys hate me because I cannot be dogmatic about certain things IN A CRISIS??? Yet when I am dogmatic about something that was never disputed ... you get angry with me.

Please explain this for me in less that three paragraphs.

Yeah, Caminus, go ahead and tell us that every obiter dictum in the Catechism of Trent constitutes an infallible dogmatic definition while at the same time saying that a legitimate Pope and Ecuмenical Council can promote error to the universal Church.

Asserting that a doctrine is taught by way of the universal ordinary magisterium is to necessarily posit that it has not been solemnly defined.  

I see your tactic to dismiss the doctrine is now to attempt to consign it to mere obiter dicta.  Fascinating.  Now maybe you can explain on what grounds you assert such a thing other than by force of your rabid prejudice?  

Regarding your futile charge that I must concede your arbitrary selectivity with regard to this doctrine because of the modernism within the hierarchy today, I would draw your attention to the fact that the evidence adduced above implies that without faithful diligence in carefully protecting and explaining sacred doctrine, disasterous effects could have ensued.  

There is simply no parity, no matter how much you wish, between a doctrine that is the object of the universal ordinary magisterium, doctrinal tradition as exposited by faithful and approved theologians, and that of the situation today.  I am not of the sedevacantist opinion that the bishops lose their free will with regard to faithfully discharging their duties.  Consequently, if they lust for novelty and fall into error, it is merely a moment in time all happening under the guise of authority.  Our point of reference in order to discern this modern spirit is precisely the traditional magisterium, the very thing you call into question by your denial of its rectitude.  It is not so much in the denial of the doctrine that merits for you the epithet 'heretic' (for it is not defined and thus you escape such a title) rather it is what you do to the divine constitution of the Church by mere implication.    

One wonders what recourse you would have if this crisis were not upon us.  Just like the revolutionary who is bent upon destablizing society for his own end, so too do you take advantage of this crisis in order to further your agenda.      

Someone was kind enough to send me the original Latin, and this passage in Trent represents yet another butchered translation (probably to further an agenda).

...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint

There's nothing here whatsoever about "impossibility", as the Latin impediat means to hindred or obstruct.  It's actually rather bad Latin, but the sense is clear.  It should be translated as follows:

"[these proper dispositions] would suffice to see them through any sudden event/mishap that might get in the way of their being able to be cleansed/washed with the saving water", see them through "to grace and justice" -- I just put that last part last not to interrupt the flow.

In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

Someone was kind enough to send me the original Latin, and this passage in Trent represents yet another butchered translation (probably to further an agenda).

Quote

...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint

There's nothing here whatsoever about "impossibility", as the Latin impediat means to hindred or obstruct.  It's actually rather bad Latin, but the sense is clear.  It should be translated as follows:

"[these proper dispositions] would suffice to see them through any sudden event/mishap that might get in the way of their being able to be cleansed/washed with the saving water", see them through "to grace and justice" -- I just put that last part last not to interrupt the flow.

In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

This totally makes rational sense, and it's what I've thought since I heard the entire BoD argument.