Author Topic: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Read 18704 times)

Alcuin · « **Reply #120 on:** January 07, 2014, 09:19:09 PM »

Quote from: SJB

You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.

Waiting for you to do that for Vatican II...

bowler · « **Reply #121 on:** January 07, 2014, 09:26:38 PM »

Quote from: Grieverer

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
How is it that someone so intelligent can be so blind? - I think people who go through the NO education / indoctrination process are brainwashed, and brainwashed permanently. He is the third NOer I knew who is an educated NOer - nothing worse than an educated NOer - impossible to get through to those folks.

But Fastiggi is the one who's internally consistent. Fastiggi and Sanborn both believe that non-Catholics can be saved. Fastiggi shows how Vatican II ecclesiology simply follows from that.

Just as I have been saying, the CRUX of Traditional Catholicism is the PREMISE, i.e. whether there's extended BoD. If there's extended BoD, then Vatican II follows logically therefrom.

It also makes Traditional Catholics look bad when not only Bishop Sanborn but numerous members of the audience start laughing at Fastiggi in a very derisive tone -- a very poor showing that makes Traditional Catholics look really bad.

I don't believe what Sanborn believes but at least he makes the distinction of invincible ignorance, he says only then would such persons be saved according to him, whereas Vatican 2 makes no such distinction but blatantly says that heretical and schismatic sects as such are means of salvation and are in the Church of Christ etc.

Sanborn & co. say someone could be saved if he were in invincible ignorance per accidens but Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo sect reject such a thing and says that any and all can be saved outside the Church by and through and in their sects.[/i]

Your "distinction" reminds me of the fornicators, shackups and the adulterers criticizing the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. It's Sanborn's belief and defense in the theory of salvation by implicit faith (the belief that one can be saved who is not baptized, nor has any explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ) that allows the progressivists to carry on with their destruction of the Church. Till these so-called traditionalists clergy like Sanborn and Fellay stop their own "fornicating, shacking up and the adultery" of defending salvation by implicit faith, we will continue in the desert. Sanborn and those like him do not have a leg to stand on regarding ecuмenism and religious liberty, as long as they rabidly defend the theory that one can be saved who is not baptized, nor has any explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ. They are like fornicators, shackups and the adulterers criticizing the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #122 on:** January 07, 2014, 11:29:31 PM »

.

This was a very good post:

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn

This certainly applies:
Quote from: Fr. Wathen

15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it....

Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma.

They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.

I see it as providential that this video was posted now.

Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II doe not contradict tradition.

EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reaction against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.

I would like to take this one step higher, if that's okay. This 'visceral reaction' is the principal substance of their opposition to everything Newchurch. Trads who reject Vat.II but accept BoD tend to rely on their 'feelings' about what's wrong with Newsacraments and Newmass and everything else Conciliar. It's as though their preference for the TLM is founded on its trappings and appearances and prayers, but not so much on the complete integrity of its doctrine. They will CLAIM to adhere to its doctrine, but when it comes to EENS, they defer to the popular notion of BoD and BoB as if they were fundamental principles.

There are some of these BoD-ers who try to keep TLM preference founded on doctrine, but they are frustrated because their thinking keeps running into self-contradictions. Other, more superficial Trads rely entirely on emotionalism, because they don't have the patience or perhaps the intelligence to think deeply about doctrine and theological principles. And when given the opportunity, they try to change topic to something they're more 'comfortable' talking about, such as movies, celebrities, politicians or their friends and acquaintances.

For these, the visceral reaction and revulsion they experience against clown masses and other liturgical abuses, is all they know. It's not right because it doesn't FEEL right. All they know is their feelings.

I would like to thank Stubborn and Ladislaus for this thread because your contributions are actually more informative than the recorded debate.

.

Stubborn · « **Reply #123 on:** January 08, 2014, 03:22:23 AM »

Quote from: SJB

You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.

FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.

There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?

Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.

Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............

When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.

Hope this helps.

SJB · « **Reply #124 on:** January 08, 2014, 07:00:44 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.

FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.

There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?

Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.

Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............

When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.

Hope this helps.

Again, you're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. You can't quote the catechism to refute the catechism. Anyway, you clowns have been fighting AGAINST the Roman Catechism for years, dismissing it as "not infallible." Now you've found a translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul that you think is the "real" translation, found amongst other modernist writers.

Quote from: Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis

22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.

23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.

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.

Alcuin · « **Reply #125 on:** January 08, 2014, 07:08:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.

SJB · « **Reply #126 on:** January 08, 2014, 07:27:38 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ladislaus
Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.

Except Ladislaus has found NO authority who has ever noticed these grave errors being taught by the Church for centuries. He has condemned others for NOT doing their own theology, like he has. Ladi believes he is more intelligent than all others who came before him, thus his judgments and theology are infallible. The truth is that Ladislaus can't even have a theological opinion, let alone dismiss those who have true theological opinions.

Stubborn · « **Reply #127 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:10:29 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB

You're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. Now find an authority who explains it (what you think you read) the same way you do or shut up.

FYI the Council is *thee* authority and for additional explanation I posted the link and quote from Trent's catechism.

There is no other higher authority - unless perhaps you would like for me to quote from Scripture. Would that make you happy?

Try to avoid getting caught up in the whole "the Church must submit to the Fathers" mentality - the Fathers are not "the Church" because the Fathers willingly submit to the Judgement of "the Church" - try to always remember that.

Now, hopefully for the last time, this short snip should show you the authority that the Church herself places upon Trent's catechism, and that it contains explanations which are clear. As such, you should have no trouble understanding and accepting what we've been saying against a BOD and the EENS dogma.

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it..............

When you read what is written in the catechism as it is written, you will learn that when it states that for those who fall after the sacrament of baptism, "it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means" except through the sacrament of penance, that it puts it that way to teach us that the sacrament is a necessity to have our sins forgiven.

Hope this helps.

Again, you're too stupid to realize the quote from Trent doesn't say what you think it says. You can't quote the catechism to refute the catechism. Anyway, you clowns have been fighting AGAINST the Roman Catechism for years, dismissing it as "not infallible." Now you've found a translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul that you think is the "real" translation, found amongst other modernist writers.

Quote from: Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis
22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.

23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.

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.

Sorry SJB but you are hilarious LOL. You are using the wrong version you nitwit. Use the link I gave you, otherwise you will be using a NO translation by the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul like the one you're using above.

Also, FYI, the catechism teaches the same thing as the Council of Trent - thats why they teach the same thing - no one is comparing a catechism with a catechism.

I hope you never stop posting here because even years from now, people will learn much from your posts. Yep, as long as they learn not to be as ignorant as you, they will have learned something.

SJB · « **Reply #128 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:28:39 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn

Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?

Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?

The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.

Who says it's a fact besides you and LOT and other sacrament despisers?

See if any of this makes sense to you. If not, try to read it as it is written, not what you want to make it say for a change - ok? If you still don't get it, we'll keep trying till you do get it.

Quote from: Council of Trent
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.

Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........

Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.

Trent's catechism continues:

The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance

Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.

It goes on:

Necessity Of Confession

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

The quote I used came from YOUR post. Isn't it taken from the link you provided?

Stubborn · « **Reply #129 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:35:44 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn

Perhaps if you think about it in terms that apply to you - since you believe in a COD, will you simply use a COD for the rest of your life and never go to confession again?

Are you really that stupid, Mr. "AS WRITTEN"?

The fact that sins are cancelled by perfect contrition doesn't diminish or deny the need for a Sacramental Confession. The Sacrament is a benefit to all, yet God's Grace is not bound by the Sacraments.

Who says it's a fact besides you and LOT and other sacrament despisers?

See if any of this makes sense to you. If not, try to read it as it is written, not what you want to make it say for a change - ok? If you still don't get it, we'll keep trying till you do get it.

Quote from: Council of Trent
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.

Pay attention to what Trent teaches regarding Perfect Contrition.........

Hence the- Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.

Trent's catechism continues:

The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance

Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.

It goes on:

Necessity Of Confession

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

Here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

The quote I used came from YOUR post. Isn't it taken from the link you provided?

Your quote is not from my link.

SJB · « **Reply #130 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:38:52 AM »

Quote

Your quoting the wrong post.

You're the only one who has provided any quotes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Stubborn · « **Reply #131 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:40:43 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Your quoting the wrong post.

You're the only one who has provided any quotes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

This quote from you is not from my link:

Quote from: Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis

22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.

23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.

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.

SJB · « **Reply #132 on:** January 08, 2014, 08:45:15 AM »

That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm

Stubborn · « **Reply #133 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:04:28 AM »

Quote from: SJB

That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm

Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.

SJB · « **Reply #134 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:12:54 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
That's not Trent, it's a papal encyclical.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10chdoc.htm

Problem is that by the time that encyclical came out, the pope was saying the same thing as PPV 400 years earlier, but there was no a BOD in the original catechism. By 1910, a BOD already evolved into the catechisms.

So you were wrong. I quoted an encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, not a Novus Ordo docuмent translated by the Daughters of St. Paul.

Furthermore, you are now arguing that Pope St. Pius X wasn't referring to the Catechism at the time, or that he was unaware that it was unorthodox.

You're an idiot, stubborn ... and a truly stubborn idiot at that.