Author Topic: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Read 18804 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #75 on:** January 04, 2014, 06:11:12 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Pius IX
"...those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion.....God, ..... would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."

Torments from the Latin poena refers to sensible suffering vs. pain of loss from Original Sin.

To read this the BoD way would cause Pius IX to have uttered something tantamount to heresy. It would be to say that God wouldn't allow anyone to be lost who is innocent of actual sin, i.e. guilty only of Original Sin. But that's in fact the case with any unbaptized infants ... they are lost despite being innocent of all willful transgression. They do not, however, suffer actual torments, i.e. punishment of sensible suffering due to actual sin.

Typical desperate BoDer distortion of any and all statements that could POSSIBLY be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misunderstood as implying BoD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #76 on:** January 04, 2014, 06:29:31 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So BoD went from

1) NONE

to

2) Catechumens

to

3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism

to

4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)

to

5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants

to

6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God

to

7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.

It's a joke and an abomination.

SJB · « **Reply #77 on:** January 04, 2014, 07:04:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and ~~interpreted~~ taught by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.

I corrected your quote, perhaps you might want to read V1 on the subject, particularly where the Council informs us that when the Church ~~interprets~~ declares a dogma, it is to be protected, not interpreted - and that the meaning of the dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted under the [false] pretext of a more profound understanding.

If you can ever grasp and accept that infallible teaching from Holy Mother the Church, you will have made tremendous progress and see that the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really.

Until then, you will continue to foolishly believe that the Church teaches there is both no salvation outside the Church and some salvation outside the Church.

The Church explains Her teachings in various ways. You think all you need is a copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (like a Protestant only needs a copy of the Bible).

SJB · « **Reply #78 on:** January 04, 2014, 07:11:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So BoD went from

1) NONE

to

2) Catechumens

to

3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism

to

4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)

to

5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants

to

6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God

to

7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.

It's a joke and an abomination.

I'm speaking of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church as a member. The Church would tell this person they would enter the Church by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. Nobody except a catechumen would have explicit desire to enter the Church.

bowler · « **Reply #79 on:** January 04, 2014, 08:33:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So BoD went from

1) NONE

to

2) Catechumens

to

3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism

to

4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)

to

5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants

to

6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God

to

7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.

It's a joke and an abomination.

And in the end, EENS evolved into "Who knows who is lost? We can't judge." That is what all the heroin BODers believe.

Stubborn · « **Reply #80 on:** January 04, 2014, 08:41:20 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB

Nobody think he taught there were any exceptions to the dogma. The dogma, as written and ~~interpreted~~ taught by the Church, say that outside the Church there is no salvation. It doesn't say what you think it says and that's why you have no sources for your position, which is not as written at all.

I corrected your quote, perhaps you might want to read V1 on the subject, particularly where the Council informs us that when the Church ~~interprets~~ declares a dogma, it is to be protected, not interpreted - and that the meaning of the dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted under the [false] pretext of a more profound understanding.

If you can ever grasp and accept that infallible teaching from Holy Mother the Church, you will have made tremendous progress and see that the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really.

Until then, you will continue to foolishly believe that the Church teaches there is both no salvation outside the Church and some salvation outside the Church.

The Church explains Her teachings in various ways. You think all you need is a copy of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (like a Protestant only needs a copy of the Bible).

So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?

Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.

If that weren't so sad, it'd be laughable.

FYI, the Church *interprets* Holy Scripture for us but She *declares* sacred dogma.

According to your logic, the next post you make will need an interpretation because what you are posting will not mean what it says and/or has hidden and different meanings. Strange way to try to get a point across by any measure. The fact is that everyone will walk away with a different idea about what you are attempting to communicate, the result will be that nobody at all whatsoever will be able to agree about what you are saying.

Now, while that may or may not ring true for you, it is not true for the Church. She does not make frivolous infallible declarations with contradictory meanings, rather, "that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Again, just fyi.

SJB · « **Reply #81 on:** January 04, 2014, 09:04:35 PM »

Quote

So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?

Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.

I stated it a different way because you were too blind to understand. It's quite possible for you to misinterpret a dogma simply by reading a Canon incorrectly. Yes, the Church through her authorized teachers, thru the Holy Office, etc. interprets and explains those dogmas for confused people like you.

The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.

Cantarella · « **Reply #82 on:** January 04, 2014, 09:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So BoD went from

1) NONE

to

2) Catechumens

to

3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism

to

4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)

to

5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants

to

6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God

to

7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.

It's a joke and an abomination.

BOD (and all heresies that derive from it) is a most destructive tool that the enemies of the Church have been using for centuries to tear her down by reducing her to the level of "just another church" or other "Christian denomination". They have done precisely so, on a gradual and a sneaky way.

A Catholic does good to his / her soul by making the distinction of what is Church defined dogma and what is personal or theological speculation and discard those that contradict the Infallible teaching of the Church which cannot contain error and cannot be contradicted. Even if we accept that BOD is "commonly taught" nowadays as part of Catholic catechism (which unfortunately is, most definitive in the Novus Ordo conciliar newchurch and with disastrous results for the Faith), this does not make it correct or infallible. Arianism, for example, was a commonly taught heresy that plagued the Church in the past until the heresy was resisted. The same as today we are told and taught that there is salvation outside the Church. It can't get more repugnant than that. It pains my ears every time I hear it and see how the Holy True Faith of Christ Our Lord gets distorted and put to the same level of any false religion or cult.

Alcuin · « **Reply #83 on:** January 04, 2014, 09:42:37 PM »

Quote from: SJB

The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.

Note that SJB doesn't hold himself to his own standards. He just uses this argument when he is stuck in a corner.

He contributes nothing of value.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** January 05, 2014, 03:58:52 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Even if we accept that BOD is "commonly taught" nowadays as part of Catholic catechism (which unfortunately is, most definitive in the Novus Ordo conciliar newchurch and with disastrous results for the Faith), this does not make it correct or infallible. Arianism, for example, was a commonly taught heresy that plagued the Church in the past until the heresy was resisted. The same as today we are told and taught that there is salvation outside the Church.

This is a crucial point. Father Cekada and others (like SJB) keep proposing this veritable "infallibility of theologians" nonsense to propose as traditionally Catholic any modernistic ideas and heresies that were held by most theologians before Vatican II. Father Cekada has more or less stated that things commonly taught by (a majority of modernist-infected) theologians before Vatican II are essentially part of the ordinary universal magisterium and are infallible. That's just utterly ridiculous.

Stubborn · « **Reply #85 on:** January 05, 2014, 04:01:35 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
So first you foolishly stated She "interpreted" dogmas instead of declaring them, now you try to be clever about it and say that she "explains" her teachings in various ways. Is there supposed to be some difference between interpreting a dogma and explaining a dogma in various ways?

Did you read V1 yet? If so, it looks like you still read it all wrong since you still think it says that when the Church declares a sacred dogma, no one really understands what She is teaching and that the dogma is not to be understood as declared because it is open to interpretation and needs to be explained in order to be understood.

I stated it a different way because you were too blind to understand. It's quite possible for you to misinterpret a dogma simply by reading a Canon incorrectly. Yes, the Church through her authorized teachers, thru the Holy Office, etc. interprets and explains those dogmas for confused people like you.

No matter how you say it, you still believe the Church has to interpret Her own dogmas. If the Church meant to say there was some salvation outside of Herself, then why did She declare there was no salvation outside of Herself?

The only way to read it wrong is to add exceptions to that which is declared. The only way to understand it wrong is to listen to interpreters who make exceptions to that which has been declared *to* us.

Again, the Church "interprets Holy Scripture" *for* us, but She "declares sacred dogma" *to* us. It is to be understood as declared, not interpreted.

Quote from: SJB

The question you've never answered is where you "learned" what you claim is the correct understanding of certain dogmas.

I already told you, the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really. Have you read V1 yet? Where is your source that taught you that of all things, dogmas need to be interpreted?

Why are you a Catholic when there is another way into heaven? Particularly when the other roads to get there are so much wider, smoother and have a whole lot less pot holes. If you believe there's another way, you should join those on the easier road, protesting the whole way against being a member of a Church that mandates it's members adhere to purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience - to name only a few.

Why fight temptations and deprive yourself of the pleasures when you can have the pleasures and salvation too?

Go ahead, join the rest if you want to - you are so sure that some other persons can make it who are outside of the Church, then if they can make it, certainly you can make it. So what holds you back?

SJB · « **Reply #86 on:** January 05, 2014, 02:56:08 PM »

Quote from: stubborn

No matter how you say it, you still believe the Church has to interpret Her own dogmas. If the Church meant to say there was some salvation outside of Herself, then why did She declare there was no salvation outside of Herself?

The dogma in question isn't a definition. It is a well know dogma, as referred to by Pius IX, no different than the dogma that one must be subject to the Roman pontiff. The Church has certainly explained these dogmas because they can be misunderstood by proud or ignorant people like you.

SJB · « **Reply #87 on:** January 05, 2014, 03:38:58 PM »

Quote

I already told you, the sources you keep asking for are the very sources you keep rejecting. A vicious circle really. Have you read V1 yet? Where is your source that taught you that of all things, dogmas need to be interpreted?

Why are you a Catholic when there is another way into heaven? Particularly when the other roads to get there are so much wider, smoother and have a whole lot less pot holes. If you believe there's another way, you should join those on the easier road, protesting the whole way against being a member of a Church that mandates it's members adhere to purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience - to name only a few.

Why fight temptations and deprive yourself of the pleasures when you can have the pleasures and salvation too?

Go ahead, join the rest if you want to - you are so sure that some other persons can make it who are outside of the Church, then if they can make it, certainly you can make it. So what holds you back?

You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.

I might also point out the very essence of your post is to discourage a life of purity, sacrifice, faith, prayer, fasting, penance and obedience. For a serious person who might be truly struggling with an invincible ignorance of the duty of joining the Church, you sound like a man who discounts any such struggle and instead is supremely critical of such a person as if he didn't even have a chance at salvation. You challenge those who disagree with you to become an apostate, which is disgusting.

Alcuin · « **Reply #88 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:45:38 PM »

Quote from: SJB

You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.

Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.

He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.

SJB · « **Reply #89 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: SJB
You've yet to show us any Catholic authority who has ever explained things the way you claim are "as written." You reject any and all authority and rely solely on yourself.

Note SJB can't show a Catholic authority explaining things regarding the way he sees Vatican II.

He uses this as a tactic to waste people's time and divert attention from the real issues. He does this without making any useful contribution.

Only an idiot would say what you say here in the very midst of a crisis. Of course there's no judgment from authority ... It's a crisis situation!

Sometimes I wonder where people like you come from ...