Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Caminus on June 06, 2010, 09:53:03 PM
-
-
24. VI. Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. 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.
25. Venerable Brethren, We decree and command this by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority. It now rests with you to put it into prompt and complete execution in your respective dioceses, and by the power of your authority to see to it that these prescriptions of Ours be not neglected or, what amounts to the same thing, that they be not carried out carelessly or superficially. That this may be avoided, you must exhort and urge your pastors not to impart these instructions without having first prepared themselves in the work. Then they will not merely speak words of human wisdom, but "in simplicity and godly sincerity,"[24] imitating the example of Jesus Christ, Who, though He revealed "things hidden since the foundation of the world,"[25] yet spoke "all . . . things to the crowds in parables, and without parables . . . did not speak to them."[26] We know that the Apostles, who were taught by the Lord, did the same; for of them Pope Saint Gregory wrote: "They took supreme care to preach to the uninstructed simple truths easy to understand, not things deep and difficult."[27] In matters of religion, the majority of men in our times must be considered uninstructed.
-
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.
-
It is merely a quoted section from Acerbo Nimis, On the Teaching of Christian Doctrine.
Apology accepted. :smile:
-
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 Jews.
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.
-
BOB and BOD are NOT dogmas. They've never been defined as a dogma.
They are taught however, by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. That is why I quoted Acerbo Nimis.
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
-
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.
-
Don't fall into the trap of denying Catholic doctrine.
They don't see it that way, however. That is why I call this error the "Feeneyite error". The trump card is always, "That's not a solemnly defined dogma".
-
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.
-
But the reason why I composed this post was in order to demonstrate the authority of the doctrine as it is found within the ordinary universal magisterium. A single quote from the catechism is blithely dismissed, but a more careful examination of the circuмstances brings out the truth more forcefully. It was my hope that "Ladislaus" would then see his temerity in bold relief, his tortured linguistic special pleading notwithstanding.
-
-
PTF, did you read the Roman Catechism? Do you accept it or reject it?
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
-
SJB
How comes it you earned four ignores since Saturday?
-
SJB
How comes it you earned four ignores since Saturday?
Do you think I earned them? :smile:
-
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:
-
How comes it you ACQUIRED four ignores since Saturday?
:cool:
Blame The Roman Catechism...
-
SJB
How comes it you earned four ignores since Saturday?
Because some adults around here act like children when their feelings or opinions are injured. I think it is highly telling when in matters of controversy, rather than arguing a point, they just close the eyes.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
Only by an unbelievable contortion do men twist the obvious words of the Council of Trent, deny the Father's authority and the unanimous teaching of the entire corpus of theological teaching from every possible source of doctrine.
Protestants go to great lengths to avoid or deny what is plain as day. Does that make the teaching somehow uncertain or ambiguous?
-
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.
-
You are confusing something that is per se with what is merely per accidens. The dogmatic fact of the papacy, all else being equal, is and must be historically certain, unless one wanted to impugn the nature of certitude and fundamental epistemological truth. Per accidens, certain facts or circuмstances can arise which could, in concrete particular cases, cast doubt upon a particular claimant. This accidental case does not affect the ordinary laws of certitude, in fact, they presuppose them. This is not a "novel" doctrine, rather it is simply an explicit statement of a truth that has always been recognized, that it is possible to have real certainty about legal claims. Otherwise, all reality would be thrown into complete anarchy.
-
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.
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.
Oh, by the way, there are actually a couple of errors and contradictions within the Catechism of Trent. Your version of the Enchiridion Symbolorum would be about 1000x larger than the current edition--with the notable exception of the Ecuмenical Council Vatican II. But I guess a Pius XII allocution to midwives has superior authority to that of Vatican II.
-
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.
-
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.
-
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.
-
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.
Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.
-
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.
This totally makes rational sense, and it's what I've thought since I heard the entire BoD argument.
-
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.
Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.
-
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.
should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness
-
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.
Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.
That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?
-
Yes, "impossible" is completely wrong. impediat means, like the English, to impede, get in the way, hinder. At the Latin root you'll find the word "foot", implying being tripped or tangled up.
And "accident" also in English implies death, when the Latin casus just means some happening (with usually negative connotation. Comes from the word to "fall". So it's more like the English "befall" (which also has the same negative connotation).
And the phrase "satis sit ad" does not mean will "avail to" but just literally means "will be enough to (with an implied sense of motion) grace and justice", meaning it will be enough to get you through/past the obstacle to the other side (grace and justice).
Interesting that the Catechism does not list the usual three amigos of Baptisms--which, again, one would expect if that's what it ACTUALLY meant as opposed to what people would like for it to mean.
-
So, Caminus, you never answered my question.
Do you know Latin? After all, you promoted Daly's denunciation of the Dimonds on the grounds that the Dimonds do not know Latin and were therefore not competent to theologize publicly.
So do you either reject Daly's opinion or will you admit that you are not competent to debate these matters?
-
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.
should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness
Your point? I already indicated that it's a horrible translation.
-
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.
Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.
That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?
Is the statement that there's no grace outisde the Church an error or is it not? I will cite the papal condemnation for you if you'd like.
-
Yes, "impossible" is completely wrong. impediat means, like the English, to impede, get in the way, hinder. At the Latin root you'll find the word "foot", implying being tripped or tangled up.
And "accident" also in English implies death, when the Latin casus just means some happening (with usually negative connotation. Comes from the word to "fall". So it's more like the English "befall" (which also has the same negative connotation).
And the phrase "satis sit ad" does not mean will "avail to" but just literally means "will be enough to (with an implied sense of motion) grace and justice", meaning it will be enough to get you through/past the obstacle to the other side (grace and justice).
Interesting that the Catechism does not list the usual three amigos of Baptisms--which, again, one would expect if that's what it ACTUALLY meant as opposed to what people would like for it to mean.
A linguistic distinction without a real difference.
-
So, Caminus, you never answered my question.
Do you know Latin? After all, you promoted Daly's denunciation of the Dimonds on the grounds that the Dimonds do not know Latin and were therefore not competent to theologize publicly.
So do you either reject Daly's opinion or will you admit that you are not competent to debate these matters?
First of all, he criticized their understanding of Latin because they were attempting to pass of "true interpretations" of Latin. Thus, it was a legitimate ad hominem directly relating to a point. Secondly, did you catch Dimond's little gem where they attempted to assert that Daly couldn't comment on theological matters because he was married?
You are the one in fact who is resting his case on a novel interpretation and your use of Latin. Not I. I simply follow the doctors of theologians of the Church. Ergo, my knowledge of Latin is immaterial. But you on the other hand, needed to sell yourself. Its just too bad you didn't take as many theology and philosophy classes. Of course, that probably wouldn't help the real fundamental problem that you have which is primarily of the will.
Are you going to interact with the OP or not?
-
Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.
OK, you're sounding ridiculouser and ridiculouser with every post (a sign of desperation).
First of all, the listed translation and my translation are not "opposites".
Secondly, my translation is different than the translation you listed, not "THE WORDS". You'll see "THE WORDS" in the Latin I cited.
So you go through the Latin then and explain how my translation means the opposite of the Latin words.
Have you stopped to think even for a moment that it might be YOU who's turning everything into the opposite of what it means through your sophistries just like the enemies of the Church (with whom you appear to be in league)?
-
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.
Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.
That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?
Is the statement that there's no grace outisde the Church an error or is it not? I will cite the papal condemnation for you if you'd like.
How 'bout citing the relevant passage from the Catechism for starters?
-
Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.
OK, you're sounding ridiculouser and ridiculouser with every post (a sign of desperation).
First of all, the listed translation and my translation are not "opposites".
Secondly, my translation is different than the translation you listed, not "THE WORDS". You'll see "THE WORDS" in the Latin I cited.
So you go through the Latin then and explain how my translation means the opposite of the Latin words.
Have you stopped to think even for a moment that it might be YOU who's turning everything into the opposite of what it means through your sophistries just like the enemies of the Church (with whom you appear to be in league)?
It was opposite. The whole point of the words was to convey the idea that adults can receive baptism of desire in place of the sacrament. You say it means rather that nothing will stop them from receiving the sacrament, an assertion that vitiates the meaning of the words.
As far as your last observation, have you considered the possibility for yourself? Many enemies started with the desire to seek out "pure doctrine" in an effort to distance themselves from Roman perversions. You are the one on very shakey grounds my friend and you don't even realize it.
-
You'll notice also the conspicuous absence of the word votum which the Council of Trent had JUST used to (allegedly) dogmatically define "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined BoD using votum and the Catechism were here teaching BoD, the Catechism would certainly have used the term votum rather than propositum--which Trent lists as one of the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification.
-
You'll notice also the conspicuous absence of the word votum which the Council of Trent had JUST used to (allegedly) dogmatically define "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined BoD using votum and the Catechism were here teaching BoD, the Catechism would certainly have used the term votum rather than propositum--which Trent lists as one of the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification.
And? You seem to think, among your many other fallacies, that different words describing the same reality amounts to a change in doctrine.
Are you going to oblige my requests or will I be forced to consider you a coward full of vain sophistries?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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????
-
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.
-
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:
-
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).
-
Caminus said:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.