Author Topic: Can Catholic Doctrine Change? (Read 1973 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #15 on:** August 12, 2016, 05:45:25 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Sincere heretics who follow Feeney are still heretics.

He talked about the Athanasian Creed and its explicit teaching that no one can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and you call him Feeneyite heretic, even though absolute necessity of believing in the Trinity and Incarnation fr salvation does not exclude Thomitic BoD - that show once again your inability to deal with the Athanaian Creed, and that you don't care at all about Thomostic BoD. What you really promote is salvation without faith in Christ and the Incarnation, which is contrary to how Saints understood BoD and contrary to the Athanasian Creed, but in line with Vatican II.

When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

OHCA · « **Reply #16 on:** August 12, 2016, 06:40:21 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: OHCA
But... But...BoD...

You act like Church teaching, which I present, claims all ignorant will be saved as if ignorance is a sacrament. You mischaracterize the teaching so you can condemn it which is dishonest and underhanded.

Oh--my bad. Your arguments, of course, sound nothing whatsoever like that, do they...

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

So you believe so called "Christian" sects (i.e., heretics a/k/a protestants) can more clearly "be saved within the Church?" I remember hearing a conciliarist prietender explaining this novel idea--sounded like the biggest bunch of convoluted bullshit that I had ever heard. Such concepts are the root of the religious indifference borne out of the false ecuмenism of Vatican II.

I can hardly say anything is more contradictory than one being both an adamant sedevacantist and an adamant BoDer. And let me say this about the so called "Feeneyism" "heresy"--when the Church speaks she is clear. This mealy-mouthed cobbling together bits and pieces of double-speak to get the meaning of things is a result of Vatican II.

The Church has not clearly dogmatically said we must believe BoD--their has never been a pronouncement that "he who does not believe ALL dogs go to heaven, let him be anathema." Thus, even if you and Fr. Cekada and the Fentonites and the Cushingites do turn out to be right about BoD, those who presently don't believe it ARE NOT heretics.

And the term "Feeney(ism)/(ite)" is hilarious. It implies that Fr. Feeney went back several centuries in a time machine and established the concept of EENS.

Arvinger · « **Reply #17 on:** August 12, 2016, 07:48:00 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The dogma reformers begin by rejecting the clear, ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed by believing that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after that all common sense is lost. NOTHING should be discussed with them but their denial of Athanasian Creed , their denial of what was believed by ALL the Fathers , Saints, ALL of Tradition.

KISS - Only discuss the dogmatic Athanasian Creed with anyone that discusses the salvation of non-Catholics. Until you know what they believe about the Athanasian Creed, you are dealing with a total stranger. Any article, any writer, any amateur laymen, the first question to ask them is: "do you believe that to be saved, as a minimum, one must explicitly believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (in other words, do you believe the dogmatic Athanasian Creed as it is written?)

The writers of the OP article do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written.

Incredible. Perhaps you should read before posting. He speaks when a person can first receive Communion for instance.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. Would anyone eat rat poison? The writers of the OP article are examples of those dogma refiners who do not believe the Athanasian Creed as it is written, they believe that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. No one should discuss or begin to read any of their writings without the writers first revealing their true belief and then thereafter only discuss their denial of the Athanasian Creed. If the devil was red and had horns, everyone would recognize him.

Sincere heretics who follow Feeney are still heretics.

He talked about the Athanasian Creed and its explicit teaching that no one can be saved without faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and you call him Feeneyite heretic, even though absolute necessity of believing in the Trinity and Incarnation fr salvation does not exclude Thomitic BoD - that show once again your inability to deal with the Athanaian Creed, and that you don't care at all about Thomostic BoD. What you really promote is salvation without faith in Christ and the Incarnation, which is contrary to how Saints understood BoD and contrary to the Athanasian Creed, but in line with Vatican II.

When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

Of course, again you avoid the Athanasian Creed - you do it, because it dogmatically teaches absolute necessity of faith in Trinity and the Incarnation for salvation. You reject dogmatic teaching of the Church.

As to St. Thomas's quote, you have been refuted on that already - St. Thomas teaches necessity of explicit faith in Trinity and the Incarnation elsewhere, thus when he speaks about "believing in God" to receive BoD he means Trinity and the Incarnation, not jut generic belief in existence of one God. Otherwise he would contradict himself.

Stubborn · « **Reply #18 on:** August 12, 2016, 07:58:00 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: OHCA
But... But...BoD...

You act like Church teaching, which I present, claims all ignorant will be saved as if ignorance is a sacrament. You mischaracterize the teaching so you can condemn it which is dishonest and underhanded.

Oh--my bad. Your arguments, of course, sound nothing whatsoever like that, do they...

Quote from: Lover of Truth
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

So you believe so called "Christian" sects (i.e., heretics a/k/a protestants) can more clearly "be saved within the Church?" I remember hearing a conciliarist prietender explaining this novel idea--sounded like the biggest bunch of convoluted bullshit that I had ever heard. Such concepts are the root of the religious indifference borne out of the false ecuмenism of Vatican II.

I can hardly say anything is more contradictory than one being both an adamant sedevacantist and an adamant BoDer. And let me say this about the so called "Feeneyism" "heresy"--when the Church speaks she is clear. This mealy-mouthed cobbling together bits and pieces of double-speak to get the meaning of things is a result of Vatican II.

The Church has not clearly dogmatically said we must believe BoD--their has never been a pronouncement that "he who does not believe ALL dogs go to heaven, let him be anathema." Thus, even if you and Fr. Cekada and the Fentonites and the Cushingites do turn out to be right about BoD, those who presently don't believe it ARE NOT heretics.

And the term "Feeney(ism)/(ite)" is hilarious. It implies that Fr. Feeney went back several centuries in a time machine and established the concept of EENS.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

As regards the last part of your post re: fr. Feeney, it boggles the mind how the enemy works, how they were able to convince the population that Fr. Feeney was a heretic - as if he did anything other than preach the clear truth that the Church has always taught - this teaching they were convinced to consider heretical.

Meanwhile, those often quoted 20th century 'respected theologians', i.e. Frs. Fenton, Connell, Van Noort and the host of others who were largely responsible for the current mess, these liberals are still held in high esteem by both trads and conciliarists, which is why many trads cling to their conciliarist roots while denying the same.

It is because it was their (20th century theologians) teachings that made it into all the books and reading material that was used in all the seminaries, schools, universities, libraries, catechism teachings, encyclopedias and etc. ad nausem that paved the way for V2, not Fr. Feeney's material - and LoE continues to quote them to promote the very errors that got us into this mess.

Meanwhile, LoE's overt hatred of the truth gets taken out on Fr. Feeney - as if anything Fr. Feeney taught could be found in any of the above mentioned books - the 20th century theologians took care to make sure it was their false teachings and not anything Fr. Feeney had to say that got into all the seminaries and schools etc. before V2.

Figure it out LoE.

MMagdala · « **Reply #19 on:** August 12, 2016, 08:28:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

These servants of the devil

Says it all.

MMagdala · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2016, 08:33:17 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

But... But...BoD...

What is that repulsive image, OHCA?
I shudder.
Is this in Haiti? Africa?
Looks like some kind of voodoo or spell thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** August 12, 2016, 08:41:34 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

You are unspeakably shameful. He simply summarizes in this passage with "believe in God". ELSEWHERE he's quite clear in stating that the minimum material requirements for supernatural faith in God are explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Just because he doesn't go into detail here, you now claim that he leaves it open that general belief in a Rewarder God might suffice for supernatural faith and salvation ... even though he rejects that elsewhere in his works. He's simply being succinct at this point. He speaks of belief in God without going into detail here about what the requirements are for supernatural belief in God. Shame on you. You disgrace yourself with every post.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2016, 08:43:01 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: OHCA
But... But...BoD...

You act like Church teaching, which I present, claims all ignorant will be saved as if ignorance is a sacrament. You mischaracterize the teaching so you can condemn it which is dishonest and underhanded.

Oh--my bad. Your arguments, of course, sound nothing whatsoever like that, do they...

Quote from: Lover of Truth
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

So you believe so called "Christian" sects (i.e., heretics a/k/a protestants) can more clearly "be saved within the Church?" I remember hearing a conciliarist prietender explaining this novel idea--sounded like the biggest bunch of convoluted bullshit that I had ever heard. Such concepts are the root of the religious indifference borne out of the false ecuмenism of Vatican II.

I can hardly say anything is more contradictory than one being both an adamant sedevacantist and an adamant BoDer. And let me say this about the so called "Feeneyism" "heresy"--when the Church speaks she is clear. This mealy-mouthed cobbling together bits and pieces of double-speak to get the meaning of things is a result of Vatican II.

The Church has not clearly dogmatically said we must believe BoD--their has never been a pronouncement that "he who does not believe ALL dogs go to heaven, let him be anathema." Thus, even if you and Fr. Cekada and the Fentonites and the Cushingites do turn out to be right about BoD, those who presently don't believe it ARE NOT heretics.

And the term "Feeney(ism)/(ite)" is hilarious. It implies that Fr. Feeney went back several centuries in a time machine and established the concept of EENS.

One of the best posts ever here.

OHCA · « **Reply #23 on:** August 12, 2016, 10:18:14 AM »

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: OHCA
But... But...BoD...

What is that repulsive image, OHCA?
I shudder.
Is this in Haiti? Africa?
Looks like some kind of voodoo or spell thing.

Some heretic/infidel dressed up like a Pope receiving a pagan blessing. Lucky for them, all dogs go to heaven.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #24 on:** August 12, 2016, 11:19:06 AM »

Are we to assume that the same people who condemn the infallible teaching of BOD also extol the apostate pictured in this thread as a valid Pope, unifying head of the Catholic Church and Vicar of Christ? Yeah. I'm the one with the problem.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2016, 11:21:22 AM »

Are we to assume that the same people who condemn the infallible teaching of BOD also extol the apostate pictured in this thread as a valid Pope, unifying head of the Catholic Church and Vicar of Christ? Yeah. I'm the one with the problem.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2016, 11:30:01 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

“Does Catholic Doctrine Change?”
by Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

This is as far as anyone needs to read - Fr. Connell was another one of the respected 20th century theologians who helped pave the way for conciliar religion.

Some people like you are just too smart for your own good. At some point those of your ilk will figure out that they're the only Catholics around -- and the only Catholics that have ever lived.

Maybe Fr. Connell, who was a REAL and extremely well-educated theologian, and recognized as such, ALSO knew a little bit about Sacred Theology...

I think a lot has to do with woefully inadequate knowledge about Catholicism. A lot of traditionalists are such simply because they read SSPX propaganda. Some people back in Pius X day thought that lowering the age of First Communion was very imprudent and would introduce much irreverence. Can you imagine, many of today's traditionalists might have denounced him as a modernist or modernizer!

All of us are looking at Church history from the convenient perspective of the late 20th / early 21st century. We know St. Pius X was a saint, but the people in the 1900s and 1910s didn't know that. Likewise, when Benedict XV phased out the Sodalitium Pianum, he didn't know that the consequences would ultimately be disastrous. He just thought it was more prudent to phase it out. Turns out he was wrong. But back in the 1910s and 1920s that wasn't apparent.

Remember n. 24 from Pope Benedict's "Ad Apostolorum": "It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself."

That was said to quell the controversy about "integrist Catholics" vs. "modernist Catholics".

OHCA · « **Reply #27 on:** August 12, 2016, 11:41:48 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Are we to assume that the same people who condemn the infallible teaching of BOD also extol the apostate pictured in this thread as a valid Pope, unifying head of the Catholic Church and Vicar of Christ? Yeah. I'm the one with the problem.

I don't think he was a valid Pope--not 100% certain--but I don't think so. The voodoo lady probably desires to be a part of the eternal happy hunting ground of the great rainmaker or whatever. So admission by BoD and all is good, right?

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:10:13 PM »

Interesting how my post here was conveniently swept under the carpet. And "Lover of Truth" still actually has the nerve to say, "....Fr. Connell, who was a REAL and extremely well-educated theologian, and recognized as such"? What he states in the article referenced is not taught anywhere in the Church before the 20th century.

Amazing how obsessed people are with the subject of BoD on this site - actually steering this thread to that subject when it has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: saintbosco13

If Catholic doctrine cannot change, why then does Fr. Connell state the following in his article, "Falsehoods by One in Authority"?:

"They hold that when a person possesses a very important secret and someone is trying unjustly to discover it, this person is permitted to tell a direct falsehood as a means of protection. In such an event, they say, the falsehood is not to be classified as a lie, since the essential malice of a lie is the harm it does to society, and in the particular circuмstances described, society is aided rather than harmed by a falsehood. I believe that the opinion of these latter theologians is sufficiently probable to be used in practice."

This is contrary to both Scripture and traditional Church teaching, which states that a lie is never permissible under any circuмstance, yet Fr. Connell says it's acceptable?!

The mentioned article is posted on the CMRI website here:
cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2011-02.pdf

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:20:46 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Are we to assume that the same people who condemn the infallible teaching of BOD also extol the apostate pictured in this thread as a valid Pope, unifying head of the Catholic Church and Vicar of Christ? Yeah. I'm the one with the problem.

I don't think he was a valid Pope--not 100% certain--but I don't think so. The voodoo lady probably desires to be a part of the eternal happy hunting ground of the great rainmaker or whatever. So admission by BoD and all is good, right?

You act as if BOD = the salvation of all. All have been redeemed. All can be saved if they cooperate with the grace God gives them. Very few however will be saved including many Catholics and almost all non-Catholics. It is an historical fact that the unbaptized have been saved.

Do you really think the voodoo lady in addition to being inculpably ignorant, and we cannot know that to be true, also had a supernatural Faith and perfect charity? Is this what you are suggesting?

I grow weary of the false accusations, stawmen and personal attacks to cover up the inadequacy of your false beliefs.