Author Topic: "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries (Read 4909 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #25 on:** July 09, 2016, 09:44:22 AM »

Nishant,

The quote below perfectly describes the difference between you and I, you hold the doctrinal position that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement. By following your principle, what you believe is no different than the Rewarder God believer. Any debate between you two will never end, which is what happens in the end, you give up and join them.

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Very profound, it explains everything:

Quote
The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology.

1)Their liturgical position - grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform.

2) The doctrinal position- that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement.

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 09, 2016, 12:01:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Nishant

2. Now, with regard to those excused by invincible ignorance from the sin of heresy or schism, we must consider first separated Christians who believe in Christ and the Triune God. If they are excused from sin by an ignorance which is inculpable, they are not formal heretics or schismatics, and consequently can belong to the soul of the Church by implicit desire, if they believe in and love God One and Triune with all their heart, and strive sincerely to do His will as best they can, Pope St. Pius X and several others bearing witness. Thus, they can be incorporated in the Church.

Secondly, with regard to non-Christians, the doctrine that there is no salvation without the Catholic Faith (which requires, at a minimum, explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation), together with the fact that "God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth" means that He will provide for the sincere non-Chrstian who seeks the truth with his whole heart the means to come to the knowledge of Christ and be saved. Fr. Mueller, in a catechism approved by Rome, expressly teaches this.

As per usual, you begin by affirming the truth of the dogma EENS, and end by denying it.

This is the trademark stamp of learning from what 20th century theologians teach, imo.

Stubborn, you misinterpret Nishant's comments the same way almost everyone misinterprets Pius IX. Nishant wrote that for the sincere non-Christian God will provide "the means to come to the knowledge of Christ" ... and be saved (with explicit knowledge of Christ). There's nothing non-Catholic or EENS-denying about this at all ... any more than there was in Pius IX's similar statements. Nishant simply believes that people can in some circuмstances receive Baptism in voto.

Also, unlike our pal LoT, Nishant realizes that the body of the Church and the soul must be co-extensive so that belonging to the soul necessarily means incorporation into the body.

I have zero problem with anything Nishant says here. He's perfectly consistent with the Church's Doctors on this point. I personally don't believe there's any such thing as BoD and that it's rooted in mere speculative theology, but I consider that a mere academic disagreement regarding the theological note attached to BoD. But, overall, I have zero problem with Nishant's position on EENS/BoD. LoT is a different matter entirely. He's a Pelagian who also denies Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Give me a break. Perfectly consistent? And which revelation is it that says God, (as if God is the one under obligation) "will" provide the means to come to the knowledge of Christ ... AND be saved. Who is this "non-Christian" person anyway who without the sacraments, a pope, Our Blessed Mother, the saints, a Church & etc. - suddenly is saved via a presumed sincerity?

Coming to the knowledge of Christ is not the only requirement because the dogma decrees otherwise. And what about the dogma about being subject to the pope - is that all wrapped up in the non-Christian's sincerity?

A BOD can put one in the state of justification - that is per Trent. Also per Trent, the sacraments are necessary for salvation. whoever cannot accept this needs to argue with Trent. There's no way around that no matter how sincere the person is presumed to be.

If indeed the person is truly sincere, God will provide the sacrament and the rest - whoever cannot accept that has no faith. It's that simple. Baptism in voto or desire, as if there's a difference, neither is the sacrament, which is necessary for salvation according to Trent.

Nope, it's just another one who begins by affirming the truth of the dogma EENS, and ends by denying it.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #27 on:** July 09, 2016, 12:25:28 PM »

Dear Stubborn,

The difference between you and Nishant, is that you believe dogmas as they are clearly written, while Nishant holds the doctrinal position that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement. His principle is no different than the principle followed by the believers in salvation via belief in a Rewarder God. Any debate between you and he are pointless and will never end.

clare · « **Reply #28 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:02:31 PM »

Just wondering.

Presumably even Feeneyites have non-Catholic friends and relatives. Now, when, for example, a non-Catholic grandparent, aunt, uncle, parent, or sibling dies, do you pray for him? Or do you assume that he's damned? Do you hold out any hope that something transpired between him and God at the end?

Matto · « **Reply #29 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:30:22 PM »

Quote from: clare

Just wondering.

Presumably even Feeneyites have non-Catholic friends and relatives. Now, when, for example, a non-Catholic grandparent, aunt, uncle, parent, or sibling dies, do you pray for him? Or do you assume that he's damned? Do you hold out any hope that something transpired between him and God at the end?

I would guess they pray for those non-Catholic relatives who were baptized hoping they had contrition for their sins. And then they would not pray for those non-Catholic relatives who were not baptized.