The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.

Certainly you're not interpreting this to say this instead:

The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment of it will be given as it is to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.

That's not what it says. This just says that they're spacing it out in such a way that covered over four or five years (probably from what I see here, in a classroom situation) you'll have the things listed. Yep, the instruction will be spaced so that it will be covered in five years. What does that have to do with anything?

Unless you were implying the above. If you weren't, I apologize.

BOB and BOD are NOT dogmas. They've never been defined as a dogma.

Let's look at the chart you submitted:


Examples:     The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Heresy

Effects of denial:    Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.

Remarks:    A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.

So the first one does NOT refer to BOD.

Let's look at the second:

 

Example:    The lawfulness of communion under one kind.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.

Effects of denial:    Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.

Remarks:    It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.

It wouldn't qualify as this one, either. The example they give here was said to be a heresy in Trent, if I recall correctly. Yep.

CANONS ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES
AND THAT OF LITTLE CHILDREN

Canon 1.      If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.


Example:    Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Error (in faith).

Nope, wouldn't be this one either. That is plainly in sacred scripture.

The gospels start out (referring to Jesus' public life) with the Wedding feast at Cana or the Baptism by John the Baptist. Any literate person with a bible could see that Jesus didn't say that at all.

Example:     Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Proximate to error.

Effects of denial:    Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

Pius XII proclaimed this in Mystici Corporis Christi.

"For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love."

I don't know how he figures this isn't a mortal sin against the faith, because we already have a pope definitively saying it.

Example:     Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Error (in theology).

Effects of denial:    Mortal sin against faith.

We already know that we're unable to depose a pope.

Example:     Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jєωs.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Temerarious.

Effects of denial:    Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

We know that anyone can confer baptism because Canon Law said so. And, we know that Anglican Orders are invalid because Leo XIII pronounced it already.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

"We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding. "

He decreed it.

Example:     The true and strict causality of the sacraments.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Temerarious.

Effects of denial:    Usually, mortal sin of temerity.


Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.

The sacraments have all been defined in councils already, so BOD doesn't fit into this one, either.

Also, it appears there is even some leeway here, because of the comment above, which says "proportionately grave reason" which is what? Was that even defined? No, so here's where you enter the realm of speculation.

 

Example:     That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial:    Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks:    Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus said no one knows the time, so someone saying this, would be a bit strange acting as if they knew. I would get this person checked out for mental illness before I would accuse them of mortal sin.


Example:    Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    None.

Effects of denial:    None.

Remarks:    Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.

Now I can see where BOD might fit in. Right here. It's a disputed thing, and there is no obligation to follow it because it hasn't been defined like the ones we've looked at above.

Example:     Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    None.

Effects of denial:    None.

Remarks:    The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.

BOD might even fit in this category here.

So if you were trying to accuse the BOD opponents of something by denying BOD, you did. You accused us of nothing.

Notice your quote at the end says here, grace (which he might be talking about actual grace, which is ENTIRELY possible, because God does that all the time. He infuses actual grace to get people to seek out the Faith) and righteousness, which talks about NOT salvation but justification, which is NOT the same thing as salvation. Protestants confuse those two terms all the time, so don't fall into that trap.

Notice your quote at the end says here, grace (which he might be talking about actual grace, which is ENTIRELY possible, because God does that all the time. He infuses actual grace to get people to seek out the Faith) and righteousness, which talks about NOT salvation but justification, which is NOT the same thing as salvation. Protestants confuse those two terms all the time, so don't fall into that trap.

Don't fall into the trap of denying Catholic doctrine.  The teaching of baptism of desire pertains to extreme cases where death intervenes prior to the reception of the sacrament.  It would be quite contradictory to assert that baptism of desire can avail a man the grace of baptism immediately prior to death, but that salvation does not follow.  

That method itself is a pernicious error.  Any number of Catholic doctrines could be called into question by that standard, e.g. the kinds of knowledge of Christ.  

SJB

How comes it you earned four ignores since Saturday?  

Quote from: Alexandria

SJB

How comes it you earned four ignores since Saturday?  

Do you think I earned them?  :smile:

Well, no...I'll choose my words more carefully in the future! :wink:

How can I rephrase the question....

How comes it you ACQUIRED four ignores since Saturday?

 :cool: