Author Topic: KISS with Dogma Refiners (Read 1692 times)

Last Tradhican · « **on:** August 05, 2016, 03:54:22 AM »

Among Dogma Refiners there are as many takes on the dogmas on EENS as there are Dogma Refiners. Indeed among Dogma Refiners there are no dogmas.

My recommendation, and the purpose of this thread, is to bring forth my resolution, that no one should engage in any debate with Dogma Refiners except the Athanasian Creed (AC). Keep it short and simple (KISS), if to the dogmas refiner the AC does not mean that one must believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, how can one discuss ANYTHING else with them but the AC? The AC is clear, it is ancient and not a Father ever contested it. It was not till after the Protestant Revolution that it was "devil advocated", by the Salamancans of Spain. If the AC is not to be read as it is written, then there is no dogma, and Vatican II is a valid council.

That one can't convince the Dogma Rrefiners with the clear dogma of the Athanasian Creed, is clear proof that they speak a different language. They will never understand any dogma as it is written, they will forever be in search of "truth", each one with his own take on it, and welcome to Vatican II. Their faith is grounded on moving sands. Hence it comes as no surprise that a Dogma Refiner like Fr. Fenton would call Vatican II ecclesiology on EENS an improvement.

If the clear Athanasian Creed does not mean that to be saved one must at least have faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, then the relatively convoluted opinions of all theologians on all subjects, do not mean what they say, there is no truth than can't be changed and once again I say welcome to Vatican II.

Once one thinks that dogma is not the final definitive teaching, but must be interpreted by others, then they have unwittingly opened the door to having to tolerate all interpretations, (in the case for instance of say EENS, all interpretations from the dogma on EENS as it is written, all the way to the teachings of Vatican II. Any Dogma Refiner that wants to limit everyone's belief to whatever he deems is the correct interpretation (on ecuмenism, religious freedom, salvation of non-Catholics), is just engaging in wishful thinking and vanity. Once again welcome to Vatican II

Here is the Athanasian Creed, the clear EENS dogma that anyone with common sense believes as it is written (indeed how else is anything to be read), yet 99% of Dogma Refiners believe that people who have no belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity can be saved.

To the strict EENSer, dogma is the definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, the final definitive truth, and no one, no matter how renown for his knowledge can change that final truth.

"All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so" (Fr. Wathen,"Who Shall Ascend")

Athanasian Creed [/b]

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2016, 09:26:58 AM »

What they attempt to do is to apply the distinction that these truths may be believed implicitly once one has explicit belief in the Rewarder God.

But anyone with the least bit of common sense can tell you that this is NOT what the Fathers who defined the Creed had in mind. We must accept the dogmas in the sense in which they were defined, in the sense in which the definers understood them when defining them, and NOT in a sense which subsequent theologians tried to force upon it by applying "distinctions" that couldn't have been further from the original Fathers' minds.

Same thing with the later EENS definitions. When the Fathers defined that heretics, schismatics, infidels, etc. could not be saved, they meant what they said. Now, sure, if someone argues that someone could be a purely material heretic or schismatic under certain conditions, well, then they're really not heretics or schismatics at all. And that might be a valid deeper understanding of the dogma. But this garbage that everyone applies to the Athanasian Creed is simply invalid since there's no way that those Church Fathers had it in mind that these truths could be believed implicitly.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2016, 10:06:35 AM »

The theologians thesis is to be a devils advocate, they get recognition by coming up with all these "distinctions", it is a game they play in academia. When they foisted these "takes" upon the public, it was the beginning of the end. You can find a contrary opinion to every take of a theologian. Now you have laypeople reading the theological manuals that created the situation we are in today. In the end you have the Vatican II opinion as the truth taught by the Church. Welcome to Vatican II.

Dog Refining is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief.

As one can see, ALL the theologians have lost the Faith. Likewise all dogma refiners that believe the Athansian Creed not as it is written, will eventually lose the faith.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2016, 10:17:20 AM »

The theologians thesis is to be a devils advocate, they get recognition by coming up with all these "distinctions", it is a game they play in academia. When they foisted these "takes" upon the public, it was the beginning of the end. You can find a contrary opinion to every take of a theologian. Now you have laypeople reading the theological manuals that created the situation we are in today. In the end you have the Vatican II opinion as the truth taught by the Church. Welcome to Vatican II.

Dogma Refining is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief.

As one can see, ALL the theologians have lost the Faith. Likewise all Dogma Refiners that do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, will eventually lose the faith or their minds.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2016, 10:18:46 AM »

In the realm of theology, no more good and no more harm has come from anything than this tool of the "distinction". It's very powerful. In the right hands it can do much good. In the wrong hands it can be a disaster.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2016, 01:08:41 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

What they attempt to do is to apply the distinction that these truths may be believed implicitly once one has explicit belief in the Rewarder God.

But anyone with the least bit of common sense can tell you that this is NOT what the Fathers who defined the Creed had in mind. We must accept the dogmas in the sense in which they were defined, in the sense in which the definers understood them when defining them, and NOT in a sense which subsequent theologians tried to force upon it by applying "distinctions" that couldn't have been further from the original Fathers' minds.

The Athanasian Creed has to be altogether ignored for it can't be believed implicitly.

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (how can one hold the Catholic faith whole and undefiled implicitly if they do not believe anything about the Catholic faith?)
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.(think of the Trinity whole and undefiled)
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (you can't believe rightly when you do not believe at all)
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

In order to believe that people can be saved without explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, one would have to use the invincible ignorance excuse, yet no one mentions it anymore, and that is 1800+ years too late. He can be saved because of his invincible ignoance

Again:

"All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so" (Fr. Wathen,"Who Shall Ascend")

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2016, 01:18:42 PM »

Scratch above where it says "He can be saved because of his invincible ignorance".

Invincible Ignorance (IG) is the key to universal salvation, but again, it is almost 1800+ years too late, it is a controverted novelty, yet another dogma refinement, actually an end run. With IG everyone and anyone can be saved, one can ignore the Athanasian Creed and ALL the dogmas on EENS.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2016, 06:30:01 AM »

I agree about the Athanasian Creed - because it is the perpetual understanding of the Church, the Fathers, the Saints, the Popes, the Doctors - that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, without coming to the knowledge of Christ the Lord, and God One and Triune; but deny the Feeneyite claim regarding the Baptism of Desire because it most manifestly is not. The Church has erred if Baptism of Desire is False. Regarding the claims in this thread, one might as well say he believes Jesus went to the hell of the damned because the Creed says "He descended into hell". A pure Protestant who takes it "as it is written" according to his own private interpretation, and not by the norm of Tradition and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the whole Church teaching will be led astray by his own ignorance. That is why Catechisms and the Church explain the dogmas of the Creed.

This is why the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, the sense in which the whole Church teaching has always and everywhere understood Her defined dogmas, is the norm by which we continue to understand them. Anything else is modernism, which is why the Church in Her Oath against it condemned the thesis that dogmas can evolve into a novel sense "contrary to that which the Church held previously" proving the traditional and universal understanding of them is infallibly true.

Quote from: Ladislaus

if someone argues that someone could be a purely material heretic or schismatic under certain conditions, well, then they're really not heretics or schismatics at all.

This is the clear teaching of the Church, of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, of ancient and more recent Popes alike, St. Augustine said "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." Pope Pius XI says a similar thing of St. Josaphat who had the misfortune to be born to schismatic parents, in the Orthodox Church, as does Canon Law, the Catechism of St. Pius X regarding those who err in good faith, etc. It is easily proved by the dogma on mortal sin itself, when applied to the mortal sins of heresy and schism; inculpable ignorance excuses one from the sin of heresy and schism. If such a man believes in and loves God one and Triune, with explicit knowledge of Christ, he is in the sight of God a Christian who belongs to the Church by desire. We must understand the dogmas of the Church in that sense alone in which She has always and everywhere understood them.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2016, 10:01:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

In the realm of theology, no more good and no more harm has come from anything than this tool of the "distinction". It's very powerful. In the right hands it can do much good. In the wrong hands it can be a disaster.

I'm reminded of art, and how there are millions of artists today selling their junk, whereas, there are few if any great artist. There are so few that they had to lower the bar in order to sell the better junk as "masterpieces" (Picaso)

Throughout the history of art and prior to the 20th century, there were very few great artists, one here, one there, in one century or another century.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2016, 10:13:25 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

The Church has erred if Baptism of Desire is False.

That's because you believe the Church has taught this. I do not. I believe that it's a speculative theological opinion that became widespread and which the Church has tolerated.

On the other hand, Nishant, has the Church not erred if in fact Vatican II was a legitimate Council?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2016, 10:19:07 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is the clear teaching of the Church

Yes, but the problem is where people try to extend the notion of material heresy to people who do not have the formal motive of faith ... simply due to sincerity.

Scenario 1:

Catholic due to inculpable ignorance believes that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-eternal with the Father. Upon being corrected and told that the Church teaches otherwise, the person immediately retracts due to the authority of the Church (St. Augustine's criterion for discerning material heresy).

Scenario 2:

Protestant sincerely believes that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived. Upon being told that the Church teaches otherwise, Protestant blusters against the Church and rejects its authority to teach.

People are trying to extend material heresy to Scenario 2. It's this extension that allows non-Catholics to suddenly be in the Church and which has led to the pernicious Vatican II ecclesiology. In the second scenario, the Protestant does not have the formal motive of faith. Sincerity does not equal material heresy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2016, 10:36:59 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is the clear teaching of the Church, of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, of ancient and more recent Popes alike, St. Augustine said "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." Pope Pius XI says a similar thing of St. Josaphat who had the misfortune to be born to schismatic parents, in the Orthodox Church, as does Canon Law, the Catechism of St. Pius X regarding those who err in good faith, etc. It is easily proved by the dogma on mortal sin itself, when applied to the mortal sins of heresy and schism; inculpable ignorance excuses one from the sin of heresy and schism. If such a man believes in and loves God one and Triune, with explicit knowledge of Christ, he is in the sight of God a Christian who belongs to the Church by desire. We must understand the dogmas of the Church in that sense alone in which She has always and everywhere understood them.

But if this is so, then there is absolutely nothing heretical in Vatican II Council.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2016, 12:30:16 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is the clear teaching of the Church, of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, of ancient and more recent Popes alike, St. Augustine said "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." Pope Pius XI says a similar thing of St. Josaphat who had the misfortune to be born to schismatic parents, in the Orthodox Church, as does Canon Law, the Catechism of St. Pius X regarding those who err in good faith, etc. It is easily proved by the dogma on mortal sin itself, when applied to the mortal sins of heresy and schism; inculpable ignorance excuses one from the sin of heresy and schism. If such a man believes in and loves God one and Triune, with explicit knowledge of Christ, he is in the sight of God a Christian who belongs to the Church by desire. We must understand the dogmas of the Church in that sense alone in which She has always and everywhere understood them.

We are discussing eternal salvation, in your quote above you are talking about whether a baptized heretic or schismatic can belong to the Church by desire, yet you describe a person who is baptized and is in some minor error which he would recant if it was explained to him (like Ladislaus said, that person isn't really a heretic or schismatic to begin with). That person is a Catholic, and not by desire, he is as much Catholic as I am.

More importantly being a heretic materially or formally for a baptized person is of no consequence unless they die in that state. I am a baptized Catholic, if I die with one sin on my soul, I go to Hell. You didn't mention salvation nor that they have to die in a state of grace. I don't even know why you brought up the subject.