Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Deliveringit on January 17, 2014, 03:41:16 PM
-
In this Debate the Catholic apologist, brother Peter Dimond, totally destroys the arguments of the calvinist apologist, Keith Thompson. Listen to the debate as Keith only cites a few verses which he twists out of context and instead keith mainly cites so called "scholars" to make his case. Then listen to the Catholic monk, brother Peter Dimond, as bro. Peter goes to Scripture itself and cites many many passages which totally refutes the calvinist position. Here is the Debate from Youtube................
youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI
-
This debate was already posted about on another thread here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29489&min=0&num=5).
-
Fulton Sheen said that:
to convince a Pagan you use Philosophy
to convince a Protestant you use Scripture
to convert a Catholic you use Dogma
It'll be interesting watching him debate strictly using scripture and likely the Fathers, two sources the serous Protestants listen to.
-
It is funny how flaky the term "apologist" is tossed about.
-
I posted this same thread to 'Catholic Answers Forum' and they took it down and banned me for life. They gave no reason why. This seems very strange since brother Dimond did not promote sedevacantism in that debate, but instead refuted calvinism.
'Catholic Answers Live' probably would not remove a thread if it was some protestant such as Joel Osteen or Billy Graham refuting calvinism. So if 'Catholic Answers Live' considers the Dimond's to be protestants, then why the double standard?
Also, if any of you have a registered nickname at Fisheaters Forum, then can you post this thread there? I am unable to do that since I am not registered there and apparently they are not registering any new persons.
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
I disagree. There is not one dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that the Dimond's disagree with. Therefore they are not heretics.
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
I disagree. There is not one dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that the Dimond's disagree with. Therefore they are not heretics.
Baptism of Desire
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
I disagree. There is not one dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that the Dimond's disagree with. Therefore they are not heretics.
Baptism of Desire
Amdro the broken record speaks again.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/9/7/8/9/1/obama-broken-record-77745249806.jpeg#obama%20broken%20record)
(Not even you believe what you say Amdro)
-
Bowler,
You are the broken record, constantly singing to the tune of the Dimonds.
For me, I will learn my Faith from the Councils, Popes, Doctors, theologians, and catechisms.
-
Bowler,
You are the broken record, constantly singing to the tune of the Dimonds.
For me, I will learn my Faith from the Councils, Popes, Doctors, theologians, and catechisms.
Not even you believe what you say Amdro
See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
-
Bowler,
I sure do believe what I say. Unlike you, I will no allow myself to be deceived away from Catholic dogma.
-
Bowler,
I sure do believe what I say. Unlike you, I will no allow myself to be deceived away from Catholic dogma.
For you Catholic dogmas on EENS and baptism must not be understood as they are written. You are in denial.
See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
-
Bowler,
I sure do believe what I say. Unlike you, I will no allow myself to be deceived away from Catholic dogma.
For you Catholic dogmas on EENS and baptism must not be understood as they are written. You are in denial.
See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
I understand them as they are written and interpreted by the Magisterium.
-
Bowler,
I sure do believe what I say. Unlike you, I will no allow myself to be deceived away from Catholic dogma.
For you Catholic dogmas on EENS and baptism must not be understood as they are written. You are in denial.
See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
I understand them as they are written and interpreted by the Magisterium.
That's easy to say for you since you are just talking. Let's see you explain away all of them. You can't even get past the "membership" dogmas.
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
I disagree. There is not one dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that the Dimond's disagree with. Therefore they are not heretics.
Baptism of Desire
OK, so since you are making the claim that BOD is a dogmatic teaching, then now you have to back up your claim by giving us the ex-cathedra statement from a Pope which declared it, promulgated it and DEFINED it. If not an ex-cathedra statement, then an infallible Church Council in union with a Pope whereby BOD is declared, promulgated and DEFINED. If you cannot provide us with that, then it means you lied when you claimed its a dogma of the Church.
Oh, and don't dare insult our intelligence by posting something from the catechism. Dogmas are not declared, promulgated and defined in catechisms, but instead from Popes through ex-cathedra statements or from infallible Church Council's in union with a Pope. So I await your evidence.
-
Bowler,
I sure do believe what I say. Unlike you, I will no allow myself to be deceived away from Catholic dogma.
For you Catholic dogmas on EENS and baptism must not be understood as they are written. You are in denial.
See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
I understand them as they are written and interpreted by the Magisterium.
That's easy to say for you since you are just talking. Let's see you explain away all of them. You can't even get past the "membership" dogmas.
I have answered you over and over, but you don't want to hear it. I have referred you to Msgr. Fenton's book, but you won't read it.
You will not even admit to the first principle: Do you believe in explicit Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood? If yes, are you finally admitting that the sacrament is not always necessary, and that BoD and BoB can be substitutes?
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
I disagree. There is not one dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that the Dimond's disagree with. Therefore they are not heretics.
Baptism of Desire
OK, so since you are making the claim that BOD is a dogmatic teaching, then now you have to back up your claim by giving us the ex-cathedra statement from a Pope which declared it, promulgated it and DEFINED it. If not an ex-cathedra statement, then an infallible Church Council in union with a Pope whereby BOD is udeclared, promulgated and DEFINED. If you cannot provide us with that, then it means you lied when you claimed its a dogma of the Church.
Oh, and don't dare insult our intelligence by posting something from the catechism. Dogmas are not declared, promulgated and defined in catechisms, but instead from Popes through ex-cathedra statements or from infallible Church Council's in union with a Pope. So I await your evidence.
You must be new here, all this ground has been covered. Have you read this thread HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26281&min=0&num=5)
-
OK, so since you are making the claim that BOD is a dogmatic teaching, then now you have to back up your claim by giving us the ex-cathedra statement from a Pope which declared it, promulgated it and DEFINED it. If not an ex-cathedra statement, then an infallible Church Council in union with a Pope whereby BOD is declared, promulgated and DEFINED. If you cannot provide us with that, then it means you lied when you claimed its a dogma of the Church.
Oh, and don't dare insult our intelligence by posting something from the catechism. Dogmas are not declared, promulgated and defined in catechisms, but instead from Popes through ex-cathedra statements or from infallible Church Council's in union with a Pope. So I await your evidence.
In fact, I challenge anyone reading this thread to prove 'Baptism of Desire' is a Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. Again, in order to prove it, then you must provide the ex-cathedra statement or infallible Council in union with a Pope which DECLARED , PROMULGATED and DEFINED 'Baptism of Desire' to be a universal truth that all Catholics are bound to believe.
-
OK, so since you are making the claim that BOD is a dogmatic teaching, then now you have to back up your claim by giving us the ex-cathedra statement from a Pope which declared it, promulgated it and DEFINED it. If not an ex-cathedra statement, then an infallible Church Council in union with a Pope whereby BOD is declared, promulgated and DEFINED. If you cannot provide us with that, then it means you lied when you claimed its a dogma of the Church.
Oh, and don't dare insult our intelligence by posting something from the catechism. Dogmas are not declared, promulgated and defined in catechisms, but instead from Popes through ex-cathedra statements or from infallible Church Council's in union with a Pope. So I await your evidence.
In fact, I challenge anyone reading this thread to prove 'Baptism of Desire' is a Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. Again, in order to prove it, then you must provide the ex-cathedra statement or infallible Council in union with a Pope which DECLARED , PROMULGATED and DEFINED 'Baptism of Desire' to be a universal truth that all Catholics are bound to believe.
It's taught by the Council of Trent. Read the link I gave you.
-
You must be new here, all this ground has been covered. Have you read this thread HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26281&min=0&num=5)
Again the tactics of those who cannot give evidence from an infallible source(i.e. ex-cathedra statement or infallible Church Council), always look to fallible sources instead. St. Alphonsus was fallible and other Saints disagreed with his position. Therefore don't point to some Saint, some catechism and some scholar/theologian to make your case. Instead, give us the actual Church teaching from an ex-cathedra statement or infallible Council in union with a Pope. But remember, it must have been DECLARED by name, PROMULGATED by its actual name, and DEFINED by its name. All 3 must be met for it to be a Church Dogma.
If you cannot provide us with all 3, then don't even bother replying to my challenge.
-
You must be new here, all this ground has been covered. Have you read this thread HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26281&min=0&num=5)
Again the tactics of those who cannot give evidence from an infallible source(i.e. ex-cathedra statement or infallible Church Council), always look to fallible sources instead. St. Alphonsus was fallible and other Saints disagreed with his position. Therefore don't point to some Saint, some catechism and some scholar/theologian to make your case. Instead, give us the actual Church teaching from an ex-cathedra statement or infallible Council in union with a Pope. But remember, it must have been DECLARED by name, PROMULGATED by its actual name, and DEFINED by its name. All 3 must be met for it to be a Church Dogma.
If you cannot provide us with all 3, then don't even bother replying to my challenge.
I am not interested in your challenge, I answer you to help your soul in charity.
The Council of Trent is infallible, if you care to read the link I gave you all of the docuмentation is there. Baptism of Desire is de fide, as taught by the Council of Trent. To deny it is heresy.
-
It's taught by the Council of Trent.,..
OK, you and other fallible men claim the Council of Trent gave us the dogma of baptism of desire. Well, there are those in the Church who disagree with you. So you must now provide us with the evidence from Trent. You can't find anywhere in the Council of Trent where the term "Baptism of Desire' is DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED. Which is why you are refusing to post your evidence from that Council in this thread.
-
It's taught by the Council of Trent.,..
OK, you and other fallible men claim the Council of Trent gave us the dogma of baptism of desire. Well, there are those in the Church who disagree with you. So you must now provide us with the evidence from Trent. You can't find anywhere in the Council of Trent where the term "Baptism of Desire' is DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED. Which is why you are refusing to post your evidence from that Council in this thread.
Cite an authority who disagrees with me. I gave you the link, if you read it, everything is there. Do we have to go over it all again?
Every authority states clearly exactly what I am saying. Untrained and unauthorized laymen say otherwise. No one has ever said what the Dimonds and the SBC say, they deceive themselves.
-
By chance, if the Dimonds convinced him, what are hoping to convert him? They themselves are heretics who are debating other heretics. There is no winner here.
If you ask me, Ambrose, you're a heretic. But that's neither here nor there ... as is your opinion.
-
Whatever you think about the Dimonds, their book on How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church is a masterpiece of apologetics.
-
It's taught by the Council of Trent.,..
OK, you and other fallible men claim the Council of Trent gave us the dogma of baptism of desire. Well, there are those in the Church who disagree with you. So you must now provide us with the evidence from Trent. You can't find anywhere in the Council of Trent where the term "Baptism of Desire' is DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED. Which is why you are refusing to post your evidence from that Council in this thread.
Cite an authority who disagrees with me. I gave you the link, if you read it, everything is there. Do we have to go over it all again?
Every authority states clearly exactly what I am saying. Untrained and unauthorized laymen say otherwise. No one has ever said what the Dimonds and the SBC say, they deceive themselves.
That's called an end run, typical of the sedevacantes mind types. You attempt to ignore ALL the clear dogmatic decrees by saying "Cite an authority who disagrees with me". In order to believe what you believe we are forced to not understand language as it is written:
"Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written
-
If you ask me, Ambrose, you're a heretic. But that's neither here nor there ... as is your opinion.
I am curious about this, Ladislaus. What is Ambrose's heresy? Or his heresies?
-
If you ask me, Ambrose, you're a heretic. But that's neither here nor there ... as is your opinion.
I am curious about this, Ladislaus. What is Ambrose's heresy? Or his heresies?
I can answer that for Ladislaus. Since Ambrose is being obstinate in refusing to accept ONLY water baptism, even though water baptism is the de fide dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church by which no exceptions were made, then Ambrose is clearly embracing heresy. This is because his error has been pointed out to him and yet he is still embracing his error due to his obstinacy.
-
If you ask me, Ambrose, you're a heretic. But that's neither here nor there ... as is your opinion.
I am curious about this, Ladislaus. What is Ambrose's heresy? Or his heresies?
I can answer that for Ladislaus. Since Ambrose is being obstinate in refusing to accept ONLY water baptism, even though water baptism is the de fide dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church by which no exceptions were made, then Ambrose is clearly embracing heresy. This is because his error has been pointed out to him and yet he is still embracing his error due to his obstinacy.
The opposite is true: to deny Baptism of Desire is Heresy. I hope that the obstinacy in this matter will be excused due to the lack of training of those on here and the lack of authorized teachers.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, and must be believed. It is part of the Apostolic Tradition, has been taught by the ordinary magisterium, and taught infallibly by the Council of Trent.
-
Baptism of Desire is de fide, and must be believed. It is part of the Apostolic Tradition, has been taught by the ordinary magisterium, and taught infallibly by the Council of Trent.
So says you Ambrose, but you still refuse to back up your claim with any dogmatic teaching from the Church
Note: In order for a truth on faith and/or morals to be recognized by the Church and therefore binding on all Catholics to believe, then it must be DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED by the Church as a Dogma that all Catholics must believe.
So again, since you claim 'Baptism of Desire' is a Catholic dogmatic teaching of the Church, then why are you refusing to post the DECLARATION and DEFINITION? The reason you are unable to post it is because the Church has never DECLARED 'Baptism of Desire' to be a dogma and the Church has never DEFINED 'baptism of desire'.
I challenge anyone in this Forum to show where 'baptism of Desire' was DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED. Post the Dogmatic declaration and definition in this thread. None of you will be able to do it since it doesn't exists. And again, don't post from the catechism, saints and theologians since dogmatic statements can only be Declared, Promulgated and Defined by either an ex-cathedra statement or an infallible Church Council in union with a Pope.
-
If you ask me, Ambrose, you're a heretic. But that's neither here nor there ... as is your opinion.
I am curious about this, Ladislaus. What is Ambrose's heresy? Or his heresies?
I can answer that for Ladislaus. Since Ambrose is being obstinate in refusing to accept ONLY water baptism, even though water baptism is the de fide dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church.
I know that Ambrose believes in BOD, but the reason I asked my question was because I believed that Ladislaus did not think it was a heresy to believe in BOD, so I thought there must be some other heresy that Ladislaus thinks Ambrose believes in. Though I may be wrong about Ladislaus' belief that believing in BOD is not a heresy.
-
0
-
.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, and must be believed. It is part of the Apostolic Tradition, has been taught by the ordinary magisterium, and taught infallibly by the Council of Trent.
Ambrose the end run man. Parrots his "defide" lie end run.
Practically every answer from BoDers here on CI are end runs, actions to circuмvent, bypass, the impediment of detailed discussion. They are actions to avoid a difficult situation by dodging it without confronting it directly. Never once do they get into the details of BOD, relying instead on quoting gratuitous statements that bypass all detailed discussions on the subject.
All the while they say that all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and BOD must not be understood as they are written (See CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"), THE BIGGEST END RUN OF ALL!
If BODers were to submit an actual genuine theological argument for BoD, it would make for a real interesting debate here on CI. Instead, once again we get just another end run. Repeating ad-nauseum your false claim of "defied," to circuмvent, bypass the impediment of detailed discussions like the threads:
- Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written
- Justification by BOD and Being Born Again
- St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard
-
I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
But I do consider heretical the proposition that non-Catholics can be saved ... something which Ambrose at least implicitly believes.
-
I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
But I do consider heretical the proposition that non-Catholics can be saved ... something which Ambrose at least implicitly believes.
I most certainly do not believe non-Catholics can be saved.
-
I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
But I do consider heretical the proposition that non-Catholics can be saved ... something which Ambrose at least implicitly believes.
Okay, but you realize that means the Sacrament is not required in fact in every case and a catechumen IS NOT yet a member of the Church.
-
I most certainly do not believe non-Catholics can be saved.
Do you condemn Bishop Fellay for saying this:
"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven."?
-
I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
But I do consider heretical the proposition that non-Catholics can be saved ... something which Ambrose at least implicitly believes.
Okay, but you realize that means the Sacrament is not required in fact in every case and a catechumen IS NOT yet a member of the Church.
Not so SJB, as I've told you many times. I can't call a heretic someone who believes BOB or BOD of the catechumen. That does not mean that the theories are true. By the same token, no one can call me a heretic for believing in John 3:15 as it is written.
Now, the BOD of salvation without explicit belief in Christ, I call a heresy, however, the Church has not ruled on it to date. My calling them heretics is no different, identical in fact, to the sedes calling the current popes anti-popes. The Church has not ruled on the popes, and only the Church can do it. But the sede still calls a spade a spade, and in the same manner I call a spade a spade.
-
The Dimonds are correct about 'Baptism of Desire' not being a dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Instead, the sacrament of Baptism is a dogmatic teaching and the sacrament of Baptism refers to ONLY water Baptism.
'Baptism of Desire' is essentially the same as the heretical Sola Fide(Faith Alone) protestant doctrine. By the way, I haven't seen it yet, but apparently there are some Catholics upset with EWTN since one of its broadcasts was speaking in favor of Sola Fide. LOL
-
Have the Dimonds ever debated James White?
-
Have the Dimonds ever debated James White?
Yes. Here is the link....
youtube.com/watch?v=HT3D73gSwx0
-
Have the Dimonds ever debated James White?
James White hung up on brother Peter Dimond. The reason James White hung up is because brother Dimond was asking James White a question that James White could not answer. Brother Dimond showed in Scripture that partaking in the same sins that lead non-believers to hell, will also lead the believer to hell.
For example, if people were jumping into a volcano and getting killed, and someone told you to not partake in jumping into the volcano with them, then obviously by not partaking in the jumping into the volcano will save your life.
-
I think brother Dimond should debate Father Z next. Seems like that father Z is the new John Corapi for the so called 'conservative' Vatican II "catholics"
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
It won't happen since there is not such dogma.
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
It has been posted on this forum over and over again.
-
I most certainly do not believe non-Catholics can be saved.
Do you condemn Bishop Fellay for saying this:
"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven."?
I am curious as to whether or not Bishop Fellay was either being misquoted here or someone left part of his statement out.
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
It has been posted on this forum over and over again.
You keep saying it has been posted before and that it exists, and yet you haven't been able to provide us with any evidence yourself. If 'Baptism of Blood' and 'Baptism of Desire' are dogmas that Catholics are bound to believe, then please post the "DECLARATION" and "DEFINITION" from either an ex-cathedra statement and/or infallible Church Council prior to Vatican II. The words 'Baptism of Desire' and 'Baptism of Blood' had better be in that dogmatic statement, otherwise you have no case.
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
It has been posted on this forum over and over again.
You keep saying it has been posted before and that it exists, and yet you haven't been able to provide us with any evidence yourself. If 'Baptism of Blood' and 'Baptism of Desire' are dogmas that Catholics are bound to believe, then please post the "DECLARATION" and "DEFINITION" from either an ex-cathedra statement and/or infallible Church Council prior to Vatican II. The words 'Baptism of Desire' and 'Baptism of Blood' had better be in that dogmatic statement, otherwise you have no case.
It has been taught in Trent, I have posted it on this forum.
It has been taught through the universal ordinary magisterium, as can be demonstrated if you read the links on the "sources for Baptism of Desire thread."
It has been taught by the consensus of the theologians, which does not guarantee Infallbility, but does demand assent under pain of mortal sin.
-
....It has been taught in Trent, I have posted it on this forum.
.
You haven't answered his question. He wanted you to cite it. If the Council of Trent declared and defined it, then can you please post Trent's definition of baptism of desire for us all to read it? If you won't post it, then your claims of it existing is suspect.
-
The Dimonds' position against BOD and BOB is correct. I haven't yet seen anyone in this Forum able to provide any dogmatic statement from the Church which supports BOD and BOB.
note: dogma is not declared in any catechism and no Saint has the authority to declare dogma
So I await any BOD/BOB supporter to post the dogma which teaches BOD and BOB.
It has been posted on this forum over and over again.
You keep saying it has been posted before and that it exists, and yet you haven't been able to provide us with any evidence yourself. If 'Baptism of Blood' and 'Baptism of Desire' are dogmas that Catholics are bound to believe, then please post the "DECLARATION" and "DEFINITION" from either an ex-cathedra statement and/or infallible Church Council prior to Vatican II. The words 'Baptism of Desire' and 'Baptism of Blood' had better be in that dogmatic statement, otherwise you have no case.
It has been taught in Trent, I have posted it on this forum.
It has been taught through the universal ordinary magisterium, as can be demonstrated if you read the links on the "sources for Baptism of Desire thread."
It has been taught by the consensus of the theologians, which does not guarantee Infallbility, but does demand assent under pain of mortal sin.
I'm not sure why some folks have the need to see definitions/declarations when many things the Church teaches over the years are not taught in this manner. Isn't that true?
-
Here:
-
....It has been taught in Trent, I have posted it on this forum.
.
You haven't answered his question. He wanted you to cite it. If the Council of Trent declared and defined it, then can you please post Trent's definition of baptism of desire for us all to read it? If you won't post it, then your claims of it existing is suspect.
The fact that your only two posts are about this topic is also suspect.
-
Ladislaus said ....I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
By this statement , Ladislaus , are you saying that a Cathechumen with an explicit desire for Baptism, without being water baptized, can obtain salvation. ?
Please explain...
-
....It has been taught in Trent, I have posted it on this forum.
.
You haven't answered his question. He wanted you to cite it. If the Council of Trent declared and defined it, then can you please post Trent's definition of baptism of desire for us all to read it? If you won't post it, then your claims of it existing is suspect.
This ground has been covered over and over in these threads, so your assertion that I am not answering this is baseless. Trent explicitly taught Baptism of Desire in Session 6, Chapter IV, as St. Alphonus and others have explained and the words clearly show.
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
SOURCE (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm)
-
2Vermont wrote:
I'm not sure why some folks have the need to see definitions/declarations when many things the Church teaches over the years are not taught in this manner. Isn't that true?
The reason is a lack of Catholic formation and education. They have the idea that the the Church can allow heresy and error to run rampant in teachings of the Holy Office, the Sacred Penitentiary, the Doctors of the Church, the consensus of the theologians, the Code of Canon Law, countless approved catechisms and other approved books.
Fr. Feeney began his crusade with legitimate concerns over a watering down of EENS. As time went on, that position evolved into a second position, an attack on Baptism of Desire and Blood. This is where things got derailed, and the birth of a new heresy began.
-
......through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
So you present two words from the Council of Trent(ie- its desire) and you are therefore claiming that to be the Church's dogmatic Declaration and Definition of baptism of desire? You are joking right? Please tell me you aren't really serious :shocked:
Why are you ignoring the rest of that sentence? It goes on to say "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Notice it says "WATER and SPIRIT". Therefore your interpretation of "its desire" is obviously incorrect since the very sentence says that nobody can enter Heaven unless one is baptized with water. Therefore the correct understanding of "its desire" would be that anyone above the age of reason must have a desire for baptism at the point when they are actually being water baptized. This is so that it can be a valid baptism. This is obviously a condemnation of forced baptisms which was happening during that period of time.
So, I'll give you and anyone else in this Forum another shot at posting the dogmatic Declaration and Definition for baptism of desire since you failed miserably on your first try.
-
It's never been the subject of a definition, which are the only things you think you need to hold as a Catholic. That's the same error condemned by Pope Pius IX I in Tuas Libenter.
-
It's never been the subject of a definition, which are the only things you think you need to hold as a Catholic. That's the same error condemned by Pope Pius IX I in Tuas Libenter.
I also guess it wasn't Catholic/was heresy to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854.
-
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)
Clergy Review for April 1935, Canon George D. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. :
“What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecuмenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecuмenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.”
-
......through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
So you present two words from the Council of Trent(ie- its desire) and you are therefore claiming that to be the Church's dogmatic Declaration and Definition of baptism of desire? You are joking right? Please tell me you aren't really serious :shocked:
Why are you ignoring the rest of that sentence? It goes on to say "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Notice it says "WATER and SPIRIT". Therefore your interpretation of "its desire" is obviously incorrect since the very sentence says that nobody can enter Heaven unless one is baptized with water. Therefore the correct understanding of "its desire" would be that anyone above the age of reason must have a desire for baptism at the point when they are actually being water baptized. This is so that it can be a valid baptism. This is obviously a condemnation of forced baptisms which was happening during that period of time.
So, I'll give you and anyone else in this Forum another shot at posting the dogmatic Declaration and Definition for baptism of desire since you failed miserably on your first try.
When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide. Do you dispute this?
I am not ignoring anything from the chapter, as you allege. The words which follow at the end are the words of Our Lord, John 3:5. The Council is using this particular scripture passage to support its teaching.
Btw, you do not need to use large font when writing to me, I do not have a reading problem.
-
“What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.........”
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. For instance, in their common and universal teaching, approximately 10 popes have denounced the heretical concept of liberty of conscience and worship as contrary to revelation. A Catholic cannot reject that teaching. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Sacrament of water baptism, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those heretics who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on the Sacrament of water baptism by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which contradict this dogma, part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they aren’t. This is a clever ploy of the heretics.
But the following quotations from many popes are reaffirmations of the dogma for the necessity of the Sacrament of water baptism. These teachings of the popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the universal teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma for the necessity to be baptized with water.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema."
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
"Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."
"UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD" (JOHN 3:5).
-
“What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.........”
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. For instance, in their common and universal teaching, approximately 10 popes have denounced the heretical concept of liberty of conscience and worship as contrary to revelation. A Catholic cannot reject that teaching. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Sacrament of water baptism, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those heretics who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on the Sacrament of water baptism by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which contradict this dogma, part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they aren’t. This is a clever ploy of the heretics.
But the following quotations from many popes are reaffirmations of the dogma for the necessity of the Sacrament of water baptism. These teachings of the popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the universal teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma for the necessity to be baptized with water.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema."
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
"Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."
"UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD" (JOHN 3:5).
You are a heretic, just like Dollinger. You accept definitions yet you rely on yourself in all other areas, including the erroneous reading of actual dogmas.
-
It's never been the subject of a definition, which are the only things you think you need to hold as a Catholic. That's the same error condemned by Pope Pius IX I in Tuas Libenter.
I also guess it wasn't Catholic/was heresy to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854.
So Deliveringit. Tell me. Were Catholics heretics for believing in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854? You know, since at that time it wasn't formally defined a dogma?
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
Of course that's what he is saying and has been saying all along. To him, the councils teach in parables so only Church approves theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof means a BOD has been defined..
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
Of course that's what he is saying and has been saying all along. To him, the councils teach in parables so only Church approves theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof means a BOD has been defined..
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
Not at all, yet you somehow fail to realize that you are not an infallible reader of definitions nor of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The councils teach in the context of the council, not according to your Protestant-style interpretations.
The bottom line is that you have no Catholic source that agrees with you and your interpretations are contrary to those of all approved teachers in the Church!
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
Of course that's what he is saying and has been saying all along. To him, the councils teach in parables so only Church approves theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof means a BOD has been defined..
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
Not at all, yet you somehow fail to realize that you are not an infallible reader of definitions nor of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The councils teach in the context of the council, not according to your Protestant-style interpretations.
The bottom line is that you have no Catholic source that agrees with you and your interpretations are contrary to those of all approved teachers in the Church!
Actually, the bottom line is that you reject the teaching of the councils because you despise the sacraments - which will keep you blindly biased against all Church teachings which teach their necessity for the hope of salvation.
Remember, the canons are a de fide teaching, not a de fide parable. Now see if you can discover which of the below teachings does not belong...............
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;......let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 1) "The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone,"
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 2) By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation,
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 3) Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
Of course that's what he is saying and has been saying all along. To him, the councils teach in parables so only Church approves theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof means a BOD has been defined..
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
Not at all, yet you somehow fail to realize that you are not an infallible reader of definitions nor of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The councils teach in the context of the council, not according to your Protestant-style interpretations.
The bottom line is that you have no Catholic source that agrees with you and your interpretations are contrary to those of all approved teachers in the Church!
Actually, the bottom line is that you reject the teaching of the councils because you despise the sacraments - which will keep you blindly biased against all Church teachings which teach their necessity for the hope of salvation.
Remember, the canons are a de fide teaching, not a de fide parable. Now see if you can discover which of the below teachings does not belong...............
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;......let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 1) "The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone,"
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 2) By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation,
St. Alphonsus Liguori said: 3) Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.
I posted a defense of the Sacraments and a theological explanation of the Sacraments. You ignored it. You despise truth and that's why you despise the Church.
-
Ha!
You never posted any such thing.
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
We are going on 6 weeks now that you, as one who despises the sacraments, ignore the challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for hope of salvation. You and LoT and Ambrose just keep proving I am right with every day that goes by and every time you post.
-
Ha!
You never posted any such thing.
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
We are going on 6 weeks now that you, as one who despises the sacraments, ignore the challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for hope of salvation. You and LoT and Ambrose just keep proving I am right with every day that goes by and every time you post.
You're either a liar or an idiot.
The Sacraments, Pohle (http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=QxdFAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA255)
-
Ha!
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
I have to agree with Stubborn. I don't understand why anyone would defend teachings that are obviously contrary to what has been taught with regards to the sacrament of water baptism.
BOD seems to be the same as the protestant faith alone doctrine. They just have different names.
-
Ha!
You never posted any such thing.
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
We are going on 6 weeks now that you, as one who despises the sacraments, ignore the challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for hope of salvation. You and LoT and Ambrose just keep proving I am right with every day that goes by and every time you post.
You're either a liar or an idiot.
The Sacraments, Pohle (http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=QxdFAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA255)
What's this? A Link? THAT is your defense? That's it? That's the best you can do after 100s or 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments? - that's the best you can offer for Our Lord?
Again - could you spare it? - or don't you know the difference between starting a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments, and posting a link without even one word of commentary - on page 15 of a thread about a different subject?
All your above post proves is you don't want to touch defending the sacraments with a 10 foot pole - as I said, you keep proving I am right, you should really just come out and admit that you despise the sacraments already, admit I am right and be done with it - quit fooling yourself already - you're not fooling me or anyone else - - except for LoT and the other sacrament despisers.
-
So Deliveringit. Tell me. Were Catholics heretics for believing in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854? You know, since at that time it wasn't formally defined a dogma?
They were not heretics before the immaculate conception was declared and defined by the Church as a dogma. However, obviously they were wrong.
Water baptism has been declared and defined as a dogma by the Church as the only means by which one enters the Church, so if anyone says there is another means outside of the sacrament of water baptism, then obviously that would be heretical. Which is why 'baptism of desire' is heretical. Why do you BOD supporters claim to be "Traditionalists" and yet you accept what the modernists are promoting which is BOD and a re-interpretation of EENS ?
-
I don't believe it heresy to accept the explicit form of BoD, the one by which, say, a catechumen might be saved.
But I do consider heretical the proposition that non-Catholics can be saved ... something which Ambrose at least implicitly believes.
Catechumens are not Catholics.
-
2Vermont wrote:
I'm not sure why some folks have the need to see definitions/declarations when many things the Church teaches over the years are not taught in this manner. Isn't that true?
The reason is a lack of Catholic formation and education. They have the idea that the the Church can allow heresy and error to run rampant in teachings of the Holy Office, the Sacred Penitentiary, the Doctors of the Church, the consensus of the theologians, the Code of Canon Law, countless approved catechisms and other approved books.
Fr. Feeney began his crusade with legitimate concerns over a watering down of EENS. As time went on, that position evolved into a second position, an attack on Baptism of Desire and Blood. This is where things got derailed, and the birth of a new heresy began.
Well-stated. :applause:
-
It's never been the subject of a definition, which are the only things you think you need to hold as a Catholic. That's the same error condemned by Pope Pius IX I in Tuas Libenter.
I also guess it wasn't Catholic/was heresy to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854.
So Deliveringit. Tell me. Were Catholics heretics for believing in the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854? You know, since at that time it wasn't formally defined a dogma?
Nice! :applause:
-
SJB, are you saying that a Catholic should not understand those dogmatic statements "as they are written"?
Of course that's what he is saying and has been saying all along. To him, the councils teach in parables so only Church approves theologians understand what is being taught - except when it comes to a few certain things - -like "the desire thereof means a BOD has been defined..
Then you have Ambrose saying "When a doctrine is taught in an ecuмenical council, it is de fide." yet he rejects de fide teachings from ecuмenical councils as though rejecting them were the rule of faith taught in ecuмenical councils.
Not at all, yet you somehow fail to realize that you are not an infallible reader of definitions nor of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The councils teach in the context of the council, not according to your Protestant-style interpretations.
The bottom line is that you have no Catholic source that agrees with you and your interpretations are contrary to those of all approved teachers in the Church!
Bravo! :cheers:
-
Ha!
You never posted any such thing.
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
We are going on 6 weeks now that you, as one who despises the sacraments, ignore the challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for hope of salvation. You and LoT and Ambrose just keep proving I am right with every day that goes by and every time you post.
You're either a liar or an idiot.
The Sacraments, Pohle (http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=QxdFAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA255)
What's this? A Link? THAT is your defense? That's it? That's the best you can do after 100s or 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments? - that's the best you can offer for Our Lord?
Again - could you spare it? - or don't you know the difference between starting a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments, and posting a link without even one word of commentary - on page 15 of a thread about a different subject?
All your above post proves is you don't want to touch defending the sacraments with a 10 foot pole - as I said, you keep proving I am right, you should really just come out and admit that you despise the sacraments already, admit I am right and be done with it - quit fooling yourself already - you're not fooling me or anyone else - - except for LoT and the other sacrament despisers.
I've posted many sources that prove you are wrong. You explain away or divert away from each one. Again, you despise truth and the Teaching of the Church. You further prove your pertinacity with each post here.
-
Ha!
You never posted any such thing.
You have posted 100s if not 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments, but you have never posted one word in their defense.
We are going on 6 weeks now that you, as one who despises the sacraments, ignore the challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for hope of salvation. You and LoT and Ambrose just keep proving I am right with every day that goes by and every time you post.
You're either a liar or an idiot.
The Sacraments, Pohle (http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=QxdFAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA255)
What's this? A Link? THAT is your defense? That's it? That's the best you can do after 100s or 1000s of posts denying the necessity of the sacraments? - that's the best you can offer for Our Lord?
Again - could you spare it? - or don't you know the difference between starting a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments, and posting a link without even one word of commentary - on page 15 of a thread about a different subject?
All your above post proves is you don't want to touch defending the sacraments with a 10 foot pole - as I said, you keep proving I am right, you should really just come out and admit that you despise the sacraments already, admit I am right and be done with it - quit fooling yourself already - you're not fooling me or anyone else - - except for LoT and the other sacrament despisers.
I've posted many sources that prove you are wrong. You explain away or divert away from each one. Again, you despise truth and the Teaching of the Church. You further prove your pertinacity with each post here.
You keep proving you despise the necessity of the sacraments. Over and over again you prove it. You keep trumpeting salvation via a BOD, which encourages others to make no use of what is really useful and necessary for their eternal salvation - the sacrament of Baptism.
It is as I said - you will never, never, never, ever be able to defend that which you despise - the whole idea is completely repulsive to your lex credendi. Admit it already.
This Remedy To Be Used
The faithful, therefore, having formed a just conception of the dignity of so excellent and exalted a blessing, should be exhorted to profit by it to the best of their ability. For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it; particularly since, in communicating to the Church the power of forgiving sin, the Lord did so with the view that all should have recourse to this healing remedy. As without Baptism no one can be cleansed, so in order to recover the grace of Baptism, forfeited by actual mortal guilt, recourse must be had to another means of expiation, -- namely, the Sacrament of Penance.
-
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863
-
(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863
Lover of Truth, why do you cite a teaching that is not "infallible"?
Unlike you, we traditional Catholics hold to the "infallible" teachings of the Church and if we see any fallible teachings that is not in line with the "infallible" dogmatic teachings, then we simply discard those fallible teachings.
So why are you rejecting the "infallible" teachings which says that ONLY through the Sacrament of baptism can one enter into the Church and therefore have the hope of receiving salvation. Plus, why are you rejecting to believe in EENS "as it is written", but instead look to the interpretations of others?[/b]
True traditional Catholics look to the "infallible" declarations and definitions themselves as the proximate of faith. I have noticed that the modernists do not hold to the dogmatic declarations and definitions "as they are written", but instead look to the fallible interpretations of others in order to justify their modernist opinions.
-
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
-
THE HUMANI GENERIS AND THE HOLY FATHER’S
ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM
By Monsignor Fenton
There is one section of the Holy Father’s encyclical Humani generis which has aroused a special deal of attention in our own country. It is the following paragraph, the one numbered “20” both in the NCWC translation and in the Latin text which was printed in last November’s issue of AER.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. [This paragraph is found on p. 10 of the NCWC translation. The Latin original of this paragraph in printed in AER, CXXIII, 5 (Nov. 1950), 389.]
Each sentence of this paragraph contains an important theological truth. The first expresses a sometimes obscured fact about the Holy Father’s teaching activity. The second sentence brings out a truth which has not hitherto been set down very frequently in that section of theological writing dealing with the Holy Father’s teaching power. It constitutes a striking contribution to theological literature. The third stands as a necessary inference from the first and second sentences. It has definite and intensely practical implications for present day theologians.
The first statement of this paragraph condemns any minimizing of the authority of papal encyclicals which might be based on the subterfuge that the Holy Father does not use the fullness of his doctrinal power in such docuмents. The teaching of the encyclicals postulates an assensum per se, an acceptance by Catholics precisely because it is the teaching of the supreme doctrinal authority within the universal Church of Jesus Christ on earth. It demands such acceptance even when the Holy Father does not use supremam sui Magisterii potestatem. In other words, Catholics are bound to tender, not merely a courteous acknowledgment, but a genuine and sincere inward acceptance, to teachings which the Holy Father sets forth with a note or qualification less than de fide or even doctrina certa.
It is impossible to see the full meaning of this teaching without having an accurate understanding of what constitutes the suprema magisterii potestas of the Roman Pontiff. Here two distinct misconceptions must be avoided. The suprema magisterii potestas is in no way limited to the solemn teaching activity of the Holy Father, to the exclusion of the doctrinal pronouncements he makes in the ordinary manner. Neither is it in any way restricted to the primary object of the Church’s doctrinal competence, to the exclusion of those truths which lie within what is known as the secondary object of the Church’s infallible teaching power. The Holy Father actually exercises his suprema magisterii potestas whenever he issues an infallible or irrevocable doctrinal decision or pronouncement binding upon the universal Church militant. The mode or manner of such a pronouncement may be either solemn or extraordinary or ordinary. He may speak within the field of the primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching power, or within that of the secondary object. In any case, where the decision is final and is addressed to and binding upon the universal Church militant, the utterance is an exercise of the suprema magisterii potestas. This holds true, we must remember, whether the statement be one of the solemn judgment or the ordinary magisterium.
The first declaration presupposes that docuмents or statements in which the Holy Father uses his suprema magisterii potestas demand acceptance by all Christians, and that such acceptance is due to these pronouncements by reason of the authority or weight of the pronouncements themselves. To this presupposition it adds the declaration that the papal encyclicals (and similar writings or oral statements addressed by the Holy Father directly or indirectly to the universal Church militant) demand a genuine acceptance on the part of Christians even where the suprema magisterii potestas is not employed.
In other words, the Humani generis here renews the Church’s teaching that the Holy Father is empowered, not only to obligate the disciples of Jesus Christ to accept, on faith or as certain, statements within the sphere of the Church’s doctrinal competence, but also to impose the duty of accepting other propositions within this same sphere as opinions. The Roman Pontiff’s commission and responsibility in the doctrinal line within the true Church are such as to demand the power to command doctrinal assent from the faithful for propositions which he teaches as less than certain, or as less than de fide. It lies within the power, and sometimes within the duty of the Roman Pontiff to command his people to assent to propositions which he himself presents as statements which eventually could be abandoned.
Basically, there is nothing new in this concept. The Sovereign Pontiffs have frequently stigmatized statements with a doctrinal censure less severe than that of heresy, and less severe than that of error. It has always been recognized as a fact that Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept these condemnations, and to reject the proscribed propositions inwardly and sincerely. In the last analysis, this process involved the command to adopt an opinion, since the Church, in designating a proposition merely as something rash or ill sounding (to mention only two of these doctrinal censures inferior to those of heresy and error), has not given a definition or completely definitive judgment on the matter in question. The irrevocable decision is to be found only the definitions properly so called, the designation of some propositions as de fide or as certain. Where the declaration is not irrevocable, it is not a definition in the strict sense at all. Properly speaking, such declarations call for an assent which is at once obligatory and opinionative in nature.
The Humani generis thus reasserts the right of the Roman Pontiff to command such an opinionative assent. When, in his encyclicals, or in any other docuмents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the universal Church militant with anything less than his suprema magisterii potestas, he is calling for such an opinionative judgment. The faithful must, if they are to be loyal in their following of Christ, accept this opinionative judgment as their own. The obligation imposed by the encyclicals is not satisfied when a man merely allows that the teaching set forth in a non-infallible papal pronouncement is a respectable opinion. The followers of Christ, guided by the teaching of Christ which comes to them in the declarations of His Vicar on earth, are bound to take that opinion as their own.
The day may come when that opinion will have to be modified. The Church allows for this possibility when it presents this teaching by other than an irrevocable pronouncement. When that day comes, the ecclesia docens within which Our Lord lives and teaches will realize that the holding of this opinion as it has hitherto been set forth is no longer requisite for the purity of the true faith in the actual circuмstances then existent. Unquestionably the labors of the theologians and the other Catholic scholars throughout the world will have contributed to the formation of that judgment. But, when that judgment comes, it will inevitably be the work, not of separate scholars within the Church, but of the ecclesia docens itself. The voice of Christ the Teacher within His Church comes to us through the ecclesia docens, and never in opposition to it.
Actually, it is quite impossible to grasp the meaning of this first statement in the twentieth paragraph of the Humani generis unless we take direct cognizance of the fact that Our Lord remains always as the Supreme Teacher within His Church. The authoritative definitions and the declarations of the Catholic Church are not like the resolutions of some mere learned society or professional group. They are the continual doctrinal directions given by Our Lord, through the instrumentality of the ecclesia docens, within His kingdom on earth. They serve to enlighten and guide the disciples of Christ during their period of pilgrimage on this earth in such a way that they may arrive safely in the Church’s patria of heaven. Frequently it would happen that, in an existent status of science or of culture, the acceptance of some opinion or the rejection of another opinion would endanger the integrity of the faith itself among the people of God. It is in such cases that Our Lord, through the instrumentality of His servants in the ecclesia docens, commands His followers to adopt one opinion or to reject another, precisely as an opinion. The modification of these declarations, when and if such modifications ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as irrevocable and infallible teaching.
The second sentence in this twentieth paragraph of the encyclical has great importance for modern students of sacred theology. It affirms that the encyclicals are organs of the Holy Father’s magisterium ordinarium, and that the promise Our Lord made to His apostles (and through them to their successors in the ecclesia docens) that “He who hears you, hears me,” [Luke, 10: 16.] applies to the magisterium ordinarium just as truly as it applies to the solemn judgments issued by the Holy Father himself or by the ecclesia docens as a whole. This same sentence likewise adds the comment that most of the statements which the faithful are obligated to accept from the encyclicals have already been allocated within the field of Catholic doctrine on some other title. In other words, the Humani generis takes cognizance of the fact that no individual pontifical letter is composed entirely (or even in great part) of assertions which have never before been set forth authoritatively by the ecclesia docens.
In a general way, the theological literature dealing with the Church’s infallible and authoritative teaching power has tended to restrict the term “ordinary and universal magisterium” to the teachings of the residential bishops of the Catholic Church scattered throughout the world and united with the Roman Pontiff. The terminology of these volumes left little room for any study of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff himself. Occasionally we encounter some theological writer careless enough to deny that the Holy Father can teach infallibly other than by solemn judgment or definition. [One writer on theological subjects who made this mistake is Antoine Chevasse, in his essay, “La véritable conception de l’infaillibilité pontificale,” in the symposium Église et unite (Lille, 1948), pp. 80ff.] For the most part, however, there is very little comment at all about the Roman Pontiff’s magisterium ordinarium. Hence the declaration of the Humani generis to the effect that teaching presented authoritatively (that is, in such a way that Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept it and to adopt it as their own) in the papal encyclicals comes to us by way of the magisterium ordinarium is definitely a contribution to modern theological thought.
The Vatican Council had taught that a dogma of the faith is a truth which the Church finds contained in either of the two sources of divine revelation and which it presents as divine revelation that men must accept as such. It specified that this presentation might be made either in a solemn judgment or by the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium. Most of the manuals took this term “universal” to mean the teaching of the apostolic college of the Catholic Church as it is scattered throughout the world. In other words, they considered the word as applying to a magisterium that was universal in the sense that it was acting over the face of the entire earth at the same time. They acknowledged that such a magisterium universale et ordinarium could be the organ by which a dogma of the Catholic faith might be presented to the people of Jesus Christ, and they pointed to the dogma of the Church’s own infallibility as a teaching that is proposed to the members of the Church militant in exactly that fashion.
Now it is a dogma of the Church, presented as such by the Vatican Council itself, that the Holy Father enjoys the same infallibility in defining doctrines about faith and morals that the universal Church (or the entire ecclesia docens) possesses. Thus, since the entire ecclesia docens (the residential bishops of the Catholic Church united with their head, St. Peter’s successor in the See of Rome) can define a dogma either in a solemn judgment (when they are gathered together in an oecuмenical council) or in an ordinary manner (when they are actually resident in their own dioceses throughout the world), it follows that the Holy Father himself can speak “ex cathedra” and define a dogma either in solemn judgment (as in cases of the definitions of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and her glorious bodily Assumption) or by some ordinary means, as, for example, in an encyclical letter.
In such a case, the Holy Father’s teaching is universal. He exercises, according to the divine constitution of the Church itself, a true and episcopal jurisdiction over every one of the faithful and over every one of the other pastors within the Church militant. Thus there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the magisterium ordinarium of the Holy Father from being considered precisely as a magisterium universale. It is de fide that the Church’s magisterium ordinarium et universale can be the vehicle for the definition and presentation of a Catholic dogma. It is perfectly certain that this same magisterium ordinarium et universale can also be the vehicle or the organ of a definition within the field of the Church’s secondary object of infallible teaching. The encyclicals of the Holy Father can be and actually are statements of this magisterium. Hence they can be docuмents in which a dogma is defined or a certain truth of Catholic doctrine (which, however, is not presented precisely as revealed) is brought to the people of God on earth. This is the truth upon which the Humani generis insists at this point. And, since the power to impose authoritatively what may be called an interpretatively conditional assent (an assent which is definitely below the order of real certitude and hence belongs within the field of the opinionative) necessarily accompanies the power to pronounce an infallible judgment, this statement of the Humani generis carries with it the necessary implication that the Holy Father can and does teach authoritatively in his encyclicals when he wishes to impose upon the faithful the obligation of accepting a proposition which he presents neither as de fide nor as theologically certain.
The Humani generis likewise adverts to the fact that, when a person hearkens to the authoritative teaching of the ecclesia docens, that person is actually hearkening to the voice of Our Lord Himself. Once again, it takes this means to remind us that the Church does not teach in this world other than as the instrument and the body of Jesus Christ. The man who quibbles about the Church’s doctrinal authority is finding fault, in the last analysis, with the means by which Our Lord brings His divine truth to the children of men. There can be no intelligent appreciation about the Church’s magisterium except where and insofar as this paramount fact is taken into consideration.
The last statement of the twentieth paragraph in the Humani generis contains one of the most valuable and important lessons of the entire encyclical. It answers a vitally basic question which must be considered before any practical appreciation of the Church’s teaching can be given. The question is this: how can we tell that any statement in a papal encyclical (or in any other docuмent of the Church’s magisterium) is one which Catholics are bound in conscience to accept by reason of the authority of the docuмent itself?
The Humani generis does not try to offer anything like a complete answer to this query. It contents itself here with pointing out one instance in which Catholics are definitely and obviously bound in conscience to give an inward assent to the teachings of a papal docuмent. Such an instance occurs, according to the Humani generis, when the Holy Father takes the trouble to issue a pronouncement on a subject which has, up until the issuance of this particular docuмent in which the pronouncement is contained, been considered as open to controversy.
Clearly nothing can be considered as open to question among Catholics where there has been a definite and direct word of the authoritative ecclesiastical magisterium on this subject. Hence the res hactenus controversa to which the Humani generis refers must be a question not as yet decided by the authority of the Holy See or of the ecclesia docens as a whole. The point established in the encyclical is that when the Holy Father, data opera, issues a statement on this matter, it can no longer legitimately be considered as still open to debate among theologians. This remains true even where the sententia pronounced by the Roman Pontiff is not put forward as irrevocable, where, in other words, the contradictory of the teaching asserted is to be condemned with a theological censure less than de fide or erronea.
All that is required in this instance is that the pontifical docuмent should put forward a judgment on a question which has hitherto been considered as undecided, that it should make a definite statement (sententiam ferre) which would be contradictory to or incompatible with some of the opinions previously expressed on this question by theologians. Nothing is said about the necessity of any particular formulae. The intention of the Roman Pontiff to settle the question (either finally and irrevocably, by a declaration that this truth is de fide or at least that it is doctrina certa, or by an interpretatively conditional and opinionative judgment, according to which the contradictory of the teaching given would be qualified as temeraria), is established by the very fact that the Pontiff, in one of his official docuмents or declarations, takes the trouble to make a pronouncement on the subject. Nothing more is needed.
An example of this procedure is to be found in the treatment of the question about the immediate source of episcopal jurisdiction in the Holy Father’s encyclical Mystici Corporis. Prior to the appearance of that docuмent there had been many excellent theologians who had contended that the residential bishops of the Catholic Church receive their jurisdictional authority immediately from Our Lord. A greater number of theologians (and writers de iure publico ecclesiastico) held, on the contrary, that these men received their powers from Our Lord through the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that they came immediately from the Holy Father. In the Mystici Corporis, the Pope spoke of the residential bishops’ ordinary power of jurisdiction as something “immediate sibi ab eodem Pontifice Summo impertita.” That phrase was rightly taken as an indication that the controversy had been settled, once and for all. Where before the teaching that bishops received their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontiff had been qualified as “communis,” it now became known as “doctrina certa.” [Cf. Msgr. Alfredo Ottaviani, in his Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, 3rd edition (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), I, 413; and also the discussion on this point in AER, CXXI, 3 (Sept. 1949), 210.] The fact that the Sovereign Pontiff had, as it were “gone out of his way,” or “taken the trouble,” to speak out on a question which had hitherto been regarded as controversial, was taken as an indication that he wished to put an end to the discussion.
In this particular case, the Holy Father expressed himself categorically. Speaking of the bishops’ ordinary power of jurisdiction, he qualified it unconditionally as something received immediately from the Sovereign Pontiff. Hence the resulting note was doctrina certa. It would also have been within his power to impose this same teaching as an opinionative judgment, and in this case the censure attached to the contradictory of this teaching would have been ad minus temeraria.
The fact that a question is thus treated by the Roman Pontiff is, according to the Humani generis, an indication that the Holy Father intends that this subject should no longer be considered as a question open to free debate among theologians. The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact than an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as, for instance, by the use of such terms as “define” or “declare.” The Humani generis has put an end to this dangerous minimism. Henceforth Catholic theologians have no excuse for not recognizing the fact that a deliberate pontifical statement on a subject which has hitherto been rightly considered as open to debate, takes the matter treated out of this category and makes it a subject on which Catholic writers are bound to accept the judgment of Christ’s Vicar on earth.
If the decision of the Holy Father be not irrevocable, the fact that the matter is no longer open to debate does not in any way prevent individual theologians from investigating the subject with a view of working towards a modification of the present Catholic position. There is always at least the absolute possibility that such investigation may eventually result in a modification of the opinion incuмbent upon Catholics by reason of the authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is wrong, however, to teach or to advocate the now reproved position. If the decision is irrevocable, but only in the sense that the Holy Father has placed this teaching within the category of doctrina certa (but not doctrina de fide), then the theologian is free to argue about the possibility of a de fide or dogmatic definition of this point, but he is definitely not free to teach or to hold that the doctrine set forth by the Holy Father can be rejected or modified at all. No teaching is set forth as certain unless it has been defined as true, unless there is no possibility, no fear of danger, that the opposite may turn out to be true. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=714
Lastly I’ll sum up with the end of another of Monsignor Fenton’s articles, Magisterium and Jurisdiction in the Catholic Church:
The great good that comes from an examination of this controversy is a realization of the fact that the teaching of the Catholic Church is authoritative in a unique sense. Ultimately it is Our Lord Himself who teaches within the Church, and the doctrines set forth in His name and by His authority by His ministers demand full acceptance on the part of all subjects of the Church. When the ecclesia docens acts, it inevitably binds the consciences of all Christians to accept its teachings and to manifest that acceptance. It forbids, by the very nature of its activity, any inaccurate statement about the doctrine which has been proposed, or any refusal to receive that doctrine as the personal tenet of the persons to whom it is addressed. The man who rejects that teaching, rejects Our Lord Himself.
Ultimately, we must not allow ourselves to forget, the perfection of the Church’s teaching authority is such that the Church itself does not need to add any other jurisdictional act to its authoritative condemnation of some teaching at variance with that doctrine in order to impose upon its subjects the obligation to accept that declaration with a true and inward assent, and in order to forbid, under penalty of offense against God Himself, any outward expression of opposition to what the Church has taught. The teaching power of the Church is inherently and essentially jurisdictional. The man who is subject to the authority of the Church has a duty before God of accepting the acts of the ecclesiastical magisterium with a sincere and genuine inward assent. He is obliged to manifest that acceptance, and to refrain from any oral or written opposition to or misinterpretation of what Our Lord, acting through the ecclesia docens, has proposed authoritatively for his guidance in His Church. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=691&p=7510
-
It is impossible to see the full meaning of this teaching without having an accurate understanding of what constitutes the suprema magisterii potestas of the Roman Pontiff. Here two distinct misconceptions must be avoided. The suprema magisterii potestas is in no way limited to the solemn teaching activity of the Holy Father, to the exclusion of the doctrinal pronouncements he makes in the ordinary manner. Neither is it in any way restricted to the primary object of the Church’s doctrinal competence, to the exclusion of those truths which lie within what is known as the secondary object of the Church’s infallible teaching power. The Holy Father actually exercises his suprema magisterii potestas whenever he issues an infallible or irrevocable doctrinal decision or pronouncement binding upon the universal Church militant. The mode or manner of such a pronouncement may be either solemn or extraordinary or ordinary. He may speak within the field of the primary object of the Church’s infallible teaching power, or within that of the secondary object. In any case, where the decision is final and is addressed to and binding upon the universal Church militant, the utterance is an exercise of the suprema magisterii potestas. This holds true, we must remember, whether the statement be one of the solemn judgment or the ordinary magisterium.
-
Now it is a dogma of the Church, presented as such by the Vatican Council itself, that the Holy Father enjoys the same infallibility in defining doctrines about faith and morals that the universal Church (or the entire ecclesia docens) possesses. Thus, since the entire ecclesia docens (the residential bishops of the Catholic Church united with their head, St. Peter’s successor in the See of Rome) can define a dogma either in a solemn judgment (when they are gathered together in an oecuмenical council) or in an ordinary manner (when they are actually resident in their own dioceses throughout the world), it follows that the Holy Father himself can speak “ex cathedra” and define a dogma either in solemn judgment (as in cases of the definitions of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and her glorious bodily Assumption) or by some ordinary means, as, for example, in an encyclical letter.
-
It is de fide that the Church’s magisterium ordinarium et universale can be the vehicle for the definition and presentation of a Catholic dogma.
-
The Humani generis likewise adverts to the fact that, when a person hearkens to the authoritative teaching of the ecclesia docens, that person is actually hearkening to the voice of Our Lord Himself. Once again, it takes this means to remind us that the Church does not teach in this world other than as the instrument and the body of Jesus Christ. The man who quibbles about the Church’s doctrinal authority is finding fault, in the last analysis, with the means by which Our Lord brings His divine truth to the children of men. There can be no intelligent appreciation about the Church’s magisterium except where and insofar as this paramount fact is taken into consideration.
-
All that is required in this instance is that the pontifical docuмent should put forward a judgment on a question which has hitherto been considered as undecided, that it should make a definite statement (sententiam ferre) which would be contradictory to or incompatible with some of the opinions previously expressed on this question by theologians. Nothing is said about the necessity of any particular formulae. The intention of the Roman Pontiff to settle the question (either finally and irrevocably, by a declaration that this truth is de fide or at least that it is doctrina certa, or by an interpretatively conditional and opinionative judgment, according to which the contradictory of the teaching given would be qualified as temeraria), is established by the very fact that the Pontiff, in one of his official docuмents or declarations, takes the trouble to make a pronouncement on the subject. Nothing more is needed.
-
The great good that comes from an examination of this controversy is a realization of the fact that the teaching of the Catholic Church is authoritative in a unique sense. Ultimately it is Our Lord Himself who teaches within the Church, and the doctrines set forth in His name and by His authority by His ministers demand full acceptance on the part of all subjects of the Church. When the ecclesia docens acts, it inevitably binds the consciences of all Christians to accept its teachings and to manifest that acceptance. It forbids, by the very nature of its activity, any inaccurate statement about the doctrine which has been proposed, or any refusal to receive that doctrine as the personal tenet of the persons to whom it is addressed. The man who rejects that teaching, rejects Our Lord Himself.
Ultimately, we must not allow ourselves to forget, the perfection of the Church’s teaching authority is such that the Church itself does not need to add any other jurisdictional act to its authoritative condemnation of some teaching at variance with that doctrine in order to impose upon its subjects the obligation to accept that declaration with a true and inward assent, and in order to forbid, under penalty of offense against God Himself, any outward expression of opposition to what the Church has taught. The teaching power of the Church is inherently and essentially jurisdictional. The man who is subject to the authority of the Church has a duty before God of accepting the acts of the ecclesiastical magisterium with a sincere and genuine inward assent. He is obliged to manifest that acceptance, and to refrain from any oral or written opposition to or misinterpretation of what Our Lord, acting through the ecclesia docens, has proposed authoritatively for his guidance in His Church. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=691&p=7510
The Feeneyites have been warned. Seemingly a billion times. It is difficult for me how they would be able to claim invincible ignorance on this matter.
-
(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863
Lover of Truth, why do you cite a teaching that is not "infallible"?
Unlike you, we traditional Catholics hold to the "infallible" teachings of the Church and if we see any fallible teachings that is not in line with the "infallible" dogmatic teachings, then we simply discard those fallible teachings.
So why are you rejecting the "infallible" teachings which says that ONLY through the Sacrament of baptism can one enter into the Church and therefore have the hope of receiving salvation. Plus, why are you rejecting to believe in EENS "as it is written", but instead look to the interpretations of others?[/b]
True traditional Catholics look to the "infallible" declarations and definitions themselves as the proximate of faith. I have noticed that the modernists do not hold to the dogmatic declarations and definitions "as they are written", but instead look to the fallible interpretations of others in order to justify their modernist opinions.
So you are not a Catholic. You have created your own rule of faith.