[Ladislaus]

Since the coward Nado refuses to let me respond on his ridiculous Catechism "de fide" thread, I have to start a new one here.

[Ladislaus]

Nado wrote:

I have notice that many Catholics think that if something is not "de fide" teaching, that they are free to reject it!

This is a serious error.

For instance, the Baltimore Catechism teaches SO many truths, and there are no labels as to whether something is "de fide" or not, so how do we know which is and which is not?

We don't know....

We are not supposed to know which is or is not - because that is for confessors to use. We are only supposed to know that we are obliged under pain of mortal sin to believe everything in the Catechism because the pope approved of it for general Catholic learning.

Now, take a look at this approved chart of the various theological notes attached to teaching that was designed for confessors:
http://genus.cogia.net/Cartechini.pdf

Take care to notice that even though something may not be labeled with "de fide", it can otherwise be labeled as:
proxima fidei
theologicae certum
doctrina catholica

The chart shows that those who reject teachings labeled as such, would still commit a mortal sin, as would anyone promoting doubting what is taught by the Baltimore Catechism.

So, would you dare, for example, to reject the doctrine of guardian angels because you doubt it is "de fide"?

If you dare, it is a mortal sin, and you choose hell by doing so!

Think about how serious this subject is.

[Ladislaus]

Nado also wrote:

So, you reject out of hand an approved Catholic source saying that it is a mortal sin to disbelieve that which is "de fide" and that which is categorized with several lesser heretical notes?

[Ladislaus]

Let's take the quicker one first.

Nado calls the sub-heretical theological notes "lesser heretical".

This falls in line with the similar absurdities promoted by Nado's CMRI buddy bosco ... that everything is heresy, just different degrees of heresy.

But the truth is that heresy is something very specific.  It's only heresy, strictly defined, that results in loss of membership in the Church.  While denying truths with lesser theological notes can be mortally sinful, these denials do not result in exclusion from membership in the Church.

That's one of the things by which many rabid sedevacantists discredit themselves.  They fling the term heresy around very casually ... making no account for the theological notes of the erroneous propositions under consideration.  For them every error is "heresy" and they use these loose accusations to exclude people from membership in the Church.

[Ladislaus]

Nado alleges that rejecting anything taught by an approved catechism constitutes a mortal sin.

So, according to Nado, if I had been an Irish Catholic living before Vatican I, and I happened to reject the Irish Catechism's denial of papal infallibility, I would have been committing a mortal sin.

[Ladislaus]

Nado:

We don't know....

We are not supposed to know which is or is not - because that is for confessors to use. We are only supposed to know that we are obliged under pain of mortal sin to believe everything in the Catechism because the pope approved of it for general Catholic learning.

According to Nado, then, every word of each long-winded 10-paragraph explanation of a given teaching in a Catechism must be regarded as effectively de fide.  No theologian attributes that kind of infallibility to even the Ecuмenical Councils.  So no distinction is to be made between core dogmas like the Resurrection and various commonly-held theological opinions.  Catechisms, in the process of explaining various truths in greater detail, often propose notions that are not even defined Magisterial teaching but fall more into the category of "reflection".  But to Nado this is all de fide because not one notion can be distinguished from another in terms of its theological note.

Consequently, Nado reduces Catechisms (and all "approved" works) to being effectively infallible.  Pay no attention to the fact that different approved works can actually disagree with one another on certain points of theology.  According to Nado, we must accept the contrary and even contradictory propositions in such works as both true at the same time, that my mind must accept X and NOT X at the same time.