Author Topic: "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries (Read 4927 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #30 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:36:31 PM »

Quote from: Matto

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.

They could have been baptized unknowingly in their youth or when unconscious, and that would put them in the same boat as your first sample. That is what I pray for. If they are not, they are lost.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #31 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:43:58 PM »

This thread is about "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries, to be more precise:
It is about the doctrinal position held by the SSPX and all Sede bishops that they teach in their seminaries that says 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. In that doctrinal position they are no different than the conciliar church and don't have leg to stand on in opposing Vatican II.

This thread is not about BOD.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** July 09, 2016, 05:09:27 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 have no non-Catholic friends, only a small handful of work acquaintances. Thanks to the revolution, I have no relatives that I actually associate with, I have no idea where they even are or what they do or anything about them - thanks to the revolution......they went the wrong way without me.

Of course I might hold out some faint hope for my relatives and will say an eternal rest if I find out one of them died, simply because we have no way of knowing who is in hell or who is in heaven. But if they were to die while living in sin or divorced/remarried or died of an overdose or drunk or some such known tragedy, no, I would not hold out any hope that they could have made it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** July 09, 2016, 05:36:24 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

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.

Exactly. Dogma is not subject to theological refinement.

It is the dogma itself that is infallible. The truth is, even the pope who decreed the dogma was only infallible for a short time ie while he was decreeing the dogma, and ceased being infallible himself when he ceased making the decree, but the dogma itself was, is and will always be infallible.

Thankfully, we are bound to believe dogmas as they are written, for dogma is not subject to theological refinement - this is the infallible teaching of V1.

I believe that the 20th century theologians and their endless theological refinements are greatly (though perhaps not wholly) responsible for getting their V2 ecclesiology into many (not all) of the seminaries, well before V2.

We know that +Sanborn, Fr Cekada, +Dolan and many other sede and trad priests actually did their initial seminary training in NO seminaries, earning NO degrees for their efforts. So for them, it is relatively easy to tie the V2 ecclesiology and other errors, to the trad seminaries they support, simply because they are teaching the same things they were taught.

But for the others like +Fellay, +ABL etc. who did not attend NO seminaries yet still teach the V2 ecclesiology in their seminaries is, imo, a testament to the generous exposure and authority that the 20th century theologians were given prior V2 to teach their theological refinements as if their refinements were official interpretations of the Church as regards dogmas. Many trads still believe this with all their soul, yet can't understand how we got into this mess.

Arvinger · « **Reply #34 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:10:22 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?

Again, just as Myrna you seem to think that Feeneyites are somehow judging individual souls, which is not the case. Feeneyites merely argue about objective requirements for salvation. Whether a pecific soul made it to heaven or not - we don't know.

Lets say you have an exam to enter the university - to make it you need, say, 60%. A profesor says before the exam "those of you who will reach 60% will make it into our university". Does he judge any specific individual chances? Of course, not. The same way Feeneyites say "it is necessary to receiver baptism and have explicit faith in Jesus Christ for salvation". Whether any individual soul was saved or not, we can't know.