Author Topic: We Believe What the Church Teaches No Matter What it Is (Read 16750 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #55 on:** September 18, 2009, 03:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

He doesn't need to have changed his opinion. He simply needs to have kept it to himself. If he did not publicly repeat it, he cannot be charged with contradicting any dogmas.

Yeah, and he was a sitting Pope, right? And, you think that he would have just "kept it to himself," saying "Oops, I made this Little Goof early on in my Pontificate, and if I just don't tell anyone..." No, sorry, this is fundamental, Catholic Theology 101. I don' think that Innocent made a mistake at the Fourth Lateran Council, and I don't think that he made a mistake six or seven years earlier when he penned that "private" letter.

CM · « **Reply #56 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:15:09 PM »

Whatever you say. At the time of his letter, it had not been defined that baptism was the only way to enter the Church, and it had not been defined that it was necessary for salvation to be of the faithful. He never publicly taught that a person can be saved outside of the faithful, or without baptism.

As a matter of fact, LoT posted an interesting article by the baptism of desire heretic Griff Ruby, wherein he has us draw four quadrants on a page of paper, representing the pope's intention and profession. From what I can tell, he is spot on in that regard and I suggest you read it over again.

Don, you can choose to believe in a proposition that is contrary to the explicit words of the infallible Magisterium if you want to, it is your choice. You don't have the right to do it, however.

Nobody has the right to believe in anything contrary to something that is de fide divina et catholica.

Anybody who consciously believes such a thing is a heretic and outside of the Church, and we all know where that leads.

Jehanne · « **Reply #57 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:28:39 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Whatever you say. At the time of his letter, it had not been defined that baptism was the only way to enter the Church, and it had not been defined that it was necessary for salvation to be of the faithful. He never publicly taught that a person can be saved outside of the faithful, or without baptism.

As a matter of fact, LoT posted an interesting article by the baptism of desire heretic Griff Ruby, wherein he has us draw four quadrants on a page of paper, representing the pope's intention and profession. From what I can tell, he is spot on in that regard and I suggest you read it over again.

Don, you can choose to believe in a proposition that is contrary to the explicit words of the infallible Magisterium if you want to, it is your choice. You don't have the right to do it, however.

Nobody has the right to believe in anything contrary to something that is de fide divina et catholica.

Anybody who consciously believes such a thing is a heretic and outside of the Church, and we all know where that leads.

Well, if canonizations are infallible, then St. Thomas is in Heaven right now, correct? And, he taught Baptism of Desire, right? Besides, why would he be elevated to the status of a Doctor of the Church if he held to heretical ideas??

CM · « **Reply #58 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:38:56 PM »

Canonizations are not infallible. Read the Vatican Councils definition of infallibility.

Jehanne · « **Reply #59 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:40:50 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Canonizations are not infallible. Read the Vatican Councils definition of infallibility.

We will need to start a new thread on this one! Everything that I have read suggest that canonizations are, in fact, infallible.