:reading:  

The Council of Trent seems over looked on Original Sin. Can anyone presume to have their soul purged of Original Sin prior to Baptism?

  It appears that one cannot prior to baptism (catechumens) state they are freed from Original Sin.

  For the Council states that "after baptism" if sin is not taken away....let him be anathema.

  In other words, if a Catechumen states he is Freed From sin before baptism, then what are the after effects of baptism? Are they useless then?


  The Council of Trent on Original Sin:

  "5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted ; or even asserts that all that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only erased, or not imputed,—let him be anathema."

It is taught by 27 Church approved pre-vatican II theologians Hermengild, and you know that, AND you admitted that we are to be subject to the teaching of Church approved theologians, NOT COUNTING the various times it is taught by the fathers AND the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church! And I SHOWED you that.

Quote from: Gregory I

It is taught by 27 Church approved pre-vatican II theologians Hermengild, and you know that, AND you admitted that we are to be subject to the teaching of Church approved theologians, NOT COUNTING the various times it is taught by the fathers AND the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church! And I SHOWED you that.

I don't think you did but my question was specifically referring to time of death.

Are you saying that theologians can't be wrong about certain things?

Are yous aying that the Church can be led astray? That is condemned by Pius VI in Auctorem Fide.

The problem with taking the strict feeneyite view is that its PARTICULARS have no basis in tradition. NONE. The PARTICULAR being the idea that Those who die justified without baptism, and therefore in possesion of sanctifying grace, will not go to heaven. This idea is completely foreign to the mind of the church. Find me a SINGLE father of the Church or theologian before 1920 who teaches this. You can't, I was a feeneyite, and so I KNOW the pillars they lean on, Bellarmine, Fr. Meuller, Orestes Brownson, Abp. Hay, and NONE of them taught what Fr. Feeney did. They all took the stricter view of BOD a la the Theologian Billouart, who taught that none can be saved unless they are in VISIBLE communion with the Church, but he maintained that Catechumens are PART of the Visible structure of the Church, since the Catechumanate is in effect a part of the church's visible structure. Like entering the Vestibule of a House before entering the Living room. These can be saved.

I by no means take the liberal view, where everyone and their mother in animist new guinea can be saved, but merely Catechumens and those Pagans who have the gospel revealed to them in a mysterious way, like by an angel.

Anyway, the point is that you cannot dismiss 27 theologians as all having commited error without destroying your own admission that we are to be subject to ttheir unanimous teaching.

Remember, it is the THEOLOGIANS who shape the beliefs of the clergy who teach us the faith, and when ALL the Bishops of the world teach something in a united fashion with the Pope, that is the Universal and ordinary magisterium. Now, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent was Promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, it TAUGHT Baptism of desire. Therefore, all Bishops wwho had access to this catechism and had their priests learn it and taught from it, in effect showed the unanimity of their teaching. Bith by their submissive acceptance of the Catechism, and by 500 years of teaching what it contained. If THAT is not the universal and ordinary magisterium, then I do not know what is.

So, Show where someone ELSE taught the Particulars of Fr. Feeney's doctrine.

But they ALL taught it as simply a COMMON TEACHING of the church, not an object of faith. Get YOUR facts straight, you only tell half the story.

Do you even KNOW how the teaching on the fate of infants developed?

Of course not.

READ HISTORY. Read Augustine, Read Peter Lombard, Read Pope Innocent III, read Aquinas, read Bellarmine, get the WHOLE STORY.

And obviously a Catechism is not infallible, I never said or implied that. HOWEVER when the CONTENTS of a Catechism are TAUGHT BY ALL THE BISHOPS of the church, that constitutes the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Make distinctions, it's kinda important.  :geezer:

So are you saying that parts of the Catechism were not taught as binding by all the bishops? Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia say that the Fransicans refused to accept the Catechism as the final say on the issue of efficacious grace

The franciscans are not a teaching organ of the church like the Bishops, that is irrelevant.

IF ALL the Bishops of the world teach something as true in union with the Pope, then it is infallible.

All the Bishops taught from the CCT.

Therefore, everything that was taught BY THE BISHOPS from the CCT in union with the POPE is infallible by virtue of the fact that the WHOLE CHURCH cannot promulgate error.