Author Topic: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Read 18700 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #150 on:** January 10, 2014, 07:36:15 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: bowler
You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:

Quote from: bowler
Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.

They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion", can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.

Bowler,

Can you provide a source which defines for your modernist term, "Heroin BOD"?

:rolleyes:

Geremia · « **Reply #151 on:** January 10, 2014, 10:04:26 PM »

The Lane vs. Sungenis debate was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.

Stubborn · « **Reply #152 on:** January 11, 2014, 12:06:48 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

The Lane vs. Sungenis debate was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.

Yes, I agree.

Thanks for posting this!

Geremia · « **Reply #153 on:** January 11, 2014, 02:45:24 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Geremia
The Lane vs. Sungenis debate was better. Sungenis was better than Fastiggi, although Bp. Sanborn may have been better than Lane.

Yes, I agree.

All we need now is a Bp. Sanborn vs. Sungenis debate.

Alcuin · « **Reply #154 on:** January 18, 2014, 03:17:29 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So are quasi-members inside the Church?

SJB · « **Reply #155 on:** January 18, 2014, 09:01:10 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
Those with explicit desire would be catechumens.

Not necessarily. Catechumen was considered a quasi-legal or quasi-canonical official standing in the early Church. It was not enough to have "explicit desire". They were signed with the sign of the cross, admitted to part of the Sacred Mysteries, and referred to as Christians (but not admitted as fideles). St. Robert Bellarmine appears to have considered catechumens quasi-members of the Church.

So are quasi-members inside the Church?

Pope Pius XII defined membership in Mystici Corporis Christi, which is based on Bellarmine's concept of visibility. I believe Bellarmine says some are related to the Church by internal union, as he also states that secret heretics are still members, yet only by external union.

Obviously, a formal catechumen is visibly in the process of entering the Church, which makes him a specific case.

Geremia · « **Reply #156 on:** January 18, 2014, 11:07:33 AM »

Check out Fraghi's De Membris Ecclesiæ.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #157 on:** January 18, 2014, 08:40:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Father Cekada and others (like SJB) keep proposing this veritable "infallibility of theologians" nonsense to propose as traditionally Catholic any modernistic ideas and heresies that were held by most theologians before Vatican II. Father Cekada has more or less stated that things commonly taught by (a majority of modernist-infected) theologians before Vatican II are essentially part of the ordinary universal magisterium and are infallible. That's just utterly ridiculous.

Pope Pius IX proposed this "nonsense" as well, back in December of 1863. Pope Pius VI did so implicitly, back in August of 1794 (by denying that the Church had obscured the Gospel, and by defending the opinions of the theological schools not condemned by the Holy See, which obviously included BoD).

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #158 on:** May 07, 2014, 02:44:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, things like the CMRI article entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church" make my skin curl. It contradicts WORD FOR WORD a defined dogma of the Church. That's no different than an article that might be entitled "The Original Sin of Mary".

Not so fast; a true word for word contradiction of the dogma would be "Outside the Church there IS salvation".

To me that title sounds as if he is going to DEAL about the salvation of those who are outside the Church, as in, what they would have to do to be saved, since they are OUTSIDE.

How else would you title an article that would deal with this issue? Think about that. Probably any other title would sound similar and appear "heretical". Or are you saying that those who are outside the Church can't do anything at all to reach salvation? That if you presently ARE outside the Church (not DIE outside the Church), you are 100% guaranteed to be damned?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #159 on:** May 08, 2014, 12:39:35 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: SJB

No, it's not obvious, because the article doesn't deny any dogmas. It's merely uses terminology employed in other places in the days when this wasn't an issue.

I did not say the article itself denied the dogma. I said the title did. If you cannot admit that the title is heretical then I don't have anything to say to you because we cannot understand each other. It is like I am looking at an apple and you say "no, it is an orange".

What I said was the terminology wasn't overtly heretical because it was used by some theologians to speak of those who were not actual members of the Church. In other words, outside the membership of the Church. Catechumens are by definition not members, yet they are not necessarily considered outside the Church.

I wish they had titled it "An Explanation of the Dogma, "Outside the Church, No Salvation." If they had done this, there would be no scandal, and there would be in need for this conversation.

Msgr. Fenton wrote to correct some theologians who were using imprecise terminology. In my opinion, this imprecision led to what is commonly called, "Feeneyism." What we have now are new ideas that even Fr. Feeney would be shocked about.

All of this could have been avoided if Catholics faithfully learned from and obeyed Pope Pius XII.

Imprecise terminology used by orthodox theologians was indeed part of the problem for the likes of Feeney and the Feeneyites of his day. I do not know many feeneyites today that were as knowledgeable as Father Feeney and who could read Latin and make proper distinctions as he could. This is why he came up with people can die justified without being saved novelty. It is because he read and understood Trent differently and more correctly than the current Feeneyites do. He could not deny that Trent taught that baptism of desire justifies.