Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Cryptinox on November 06, 2021, 07:25:16 PM
-
I would like a refutation of not sedevacantism itself, but the radical strain promoted by the Dimonds which leads people to refuse communion with Catholics just because they aren't sede. I was in a chat earlier and this Dimondite called me a skeptic, claimed I was blind, and that I have no faith just because I choose not to become sede as I don't want to risk being in schism. I need some arguments to show that sedevacantism isn't something that you are bound under pain of mortal sin to embrace. Does Fr. Chazal have any good arguments? I know he wrote a book against dogmatic sedevacantism. This Dimondite strain of sedevacantism seems very dangerous and schismatic.
-
I was in a chat earlier and this Dimondite called me a...
That's your problem right there.
You can't argue with deluded zealots -- of any stripe. If you won't take the most basic advice most members of this forum would give you -- to just LEAVE THEM ALONE -- then any further advice we would give you would just be wasted here.
There's nothing you can say, no slam-dunk argument, that's going to make them say, "You know, you might be right..." NO. Not gonna happen.
Look up in the Bible the passage about putting your pearls before swine. Google it on DRBO.org.
Never argue with a crazy person. 10 year olds used to be taught that pearl of wisdom.
-
Simple: the Church has not defined anything regarding the vacancy of the Holy See since 1958. Not. A. Thing.
Therefore, there is no sin involved in not holding a sedevacantist position, because it is all a matter of theological opinion until the Church speaks on it.
-
Doesn't Father Chazal hold views close to a sedeprivationist? I found this thread here on cathinfo from a few years ago;
Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist? - page 1 - SSPX Resistance News - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-fr-chazal-sedeprivationist/)
-
Simple: the Church has not defined anything regarding the vacancy of the Holy See since 1958. Not. A. Thing.
Therefore, there is no sin involved in not holding a sedevacantist position, because it is all a matter of theological opinion until the Church speaks on it.
Yep. Their error lies in believing that because they can construct a syllogism with one premise that’s dogmatic, then the conclusion must be dogmatic. False. I’ll elaborate on this more later when I have time.
Clue/Hint/Preview: peiorem partem sequitur conclusio
Bishop Sanborn’s famous tract condemning what he calls “opinionism” is the seminal manifesto for the dogmatic sedevacantist position.
-
Fr. Chazal touched on it a bit and made some solid points that I’ll also summarize later. It’s getting late now.
-
Yep. Their error lies in believing that because they can construct a syllogism with one premise that’s dogmatic, then the conclusion must be dogmatic. False. I’ll elaborate on this more later when I have time.
Clue/Hint/Preview: peiorem partem sequitur conclusio
Bishop Sanborn’s famous tract condemning what he calls “opinionism” is the seminal manifesto for the dogmatic sedevacantist position.
THEIR ERROR is right. They are in error, and they let it affect their practice of religion and how they treat others -- you know, like heretics, schismatics, pagans...
You're absolutely right. The conclusion is only as strong as the weakest part of the argument. These idiots think that because "this is about God, religion, dogma" that anything they conclude about it is also dogma. They obviously haven't spent a day in a seminary classroom, or studied theology with any seriousness.
To use a modern expression, "Do you even theology, bro?"
They think that just because they're talking about God, religion, the Catholic Church, and dogmas, that their own OPINIONS on these weighty topics are automatically hands-off, case-closed, beyond-debate dogmas as well! And they act accordingly, condemning all and sundry who disagree with them.
These clowns ask us to follow them, to trust them with our souls, to financially support them -- and here they are ignorant of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of theology and basic argumentation!
They want to work on designing interplanetary probes for NASA, but they don't know that 2+2 = 4, or that X + Y is always the same as Y + X.
The devil is laughing. And if it wasn't so tragic, evil, and damaging to many souls of good will, I would be laughing at these fools as well.
-
THEIR ERROR is right. They are in error, and they let it affect their practice of religion and how they treat others -- you know, like heretics, schismatics, pagans...
You're absolutely right. The conclusion is only as strong as the weakest part of the argument. These idiots think that because "this is about God, religion, dogma" that anything they conclude about it is also dogma. They obviously haven't spent a day in a seminary classroom, or studied theology with any seriousness.
Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.
-
Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.
I'm always fair.
If the shoe fits, wear it. It applies to 100% of those it applies to, of course!
But if you are interested in turning this into a fight, naming names, then COUNT ME OUT, for that's a whole different story. I don't need WW3 right now. On CathInfo or anywhere else.
It's Sunday, the Lord's Day. Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.
-
I'm always fair.
If the shoe fits, wear it. It applies to 100% of those it applies to, of course!
But if you are interested in turning this into a fight, naming names, then COUNT ME OUT, for that's a whole different story. I don't need WW3 right now. On CathInfo or anywhere else.
It's Sunday, the Lord's Day. Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.
Agreed! :cowboy:
-
Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.
You mean like the most recent Salza thread? :laugh1: :fryingpan:
Who's really making things into a fight? Same ole same ole here.
Oh, and I'll save you some time Sean: "the sedevacantist cries out in pain" :laugh2:
-
You mean like the most recent Salza thread? :laugh1: :fryingpan:
:laugh1: I’ve had that “emotional train wreck” on ignore for months now. His hatred for liberals is ONLY rivaled by his hatred for those of us who hold the sedevacantist position. Frankly, I can’t see how a person like that can receive Holy Communion worthily with his hatred for his fellow Catholics solidly in his heart.
-
Who's really making things into a fight? Same ole same ole here.
Oh, and I'll save you some time Sean: "the sedevacantist cries out in pain" :laugh2:
😂😂😂
-
:laugh1: I’ve had that “emotional train wreck” on ignore for months now. His hatred for liberals is ONLY rivaled by his hatred for those of us who hold the sedevacantist position. Frankly, I can’t see how a person like that can receive Holy Communion worthily with his hatred for fellow Catholics solidly in his heart.
BTW: In all seriousness, I write this with an intention to convert his prideful heart.
-
I would like a refutation of not sedevacantism itself, but the radical strain promoted by the Dimonds which leads people to refuse communion with Catholics just because they aren't sede. I was in a chat earlier and this Dimondite called me a skeptic, claimed I was blind, and that I have no faith just because I choose not to become sede as I don't want to risk being in schism. I need some arguments to show that sedevacantism isn't something that you are bound under pain of mortal sin to embrace. Does Fr. Chazal have any good arguments? I know he wrote a book against dogmatic sedevacantism. This Dimondite strain of sedevacantism seems very dangerous and schismatic.
This section of Rev. Arthur Devine’s “The Creed Explained” (1897) should be helpful:
4. The Vatican Council declares, “ Fide divinâ et Catholicâ ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei Scripto vel tradito continentur, et ab Ecclesia, sive solemni judicio, sive ordinario et universali magisterio, tanquam divinitus revelata proponunter":
"By divine and Catholic Faith are to be believed all those things which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down by tradition, and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by her solemn judgments, or by her ordinary and universal teaching.”
It may be asked, What are the truths that we must receive as revealed by God, and as proposed by the Church, and that we have to believe by divine-Catholic faith?
5. These truths may be classed under the following beads:-
(a) All those truths that are so clearly contained in Sacred Scripture that no one can doubt or mistake their meaning, viz., the Nativity of Christ, His death and resurrection, &c.
(b) The truths that are obscurely contained in the Sacred Scriptures, but declared by the Church to be therein contained, such as the definition or declaration of the true sense of any text of Scripture.
(c) Those truths that are expressly defined by the Church to be of faith, or whose contradictories are condemned as heretical, viz., That there are Seven Sacraments of the New Law; That we cannot merit beatitude or perform salutary works without the aid of God's grace.
(d) The truths that are handed down to us by divine tradition, and which the Church has always held and declared, or manifested by her doctrine and practice, such as her doctrine regarding Guardian Angels, Infant Baptism, the Canonical Books of Scripture, &c.
All the truths contained under these heads are revealed or inspired by God, and declared or defined by the Church; and, therefore, to be believed by divine-Catholic faith. It is not necessary to have an explicit definition of the Church for every text of Scripture, and for those portions of the Sacred Scriptures whose sense can be clearly known to any one who reads them; neither is there need of an explicit definition in regard to those truths which are known to all as handed down by divine tradition. When a doubt has arisen with regard to any proposition, as to whether it is contained in Scripture or tradition, the Church, through the divine assistance, defines the truth of its revelation, or condemns it if it is opposed to revelation. This she has done whenever she has judged it necessary for the preservation of the deposit of faith committed to her by her Divine Founder. She has defined what we have to believe as divinely revealed, and condemned errors opposed to revealed doctrine whenever this was necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.
6. How are we to regard propositions that are deduced from revealed premises, and that are, therefore, necessarily connected with our faith and its preservation? For example:
(a) Propositions or Conclusions drawn from two revealed premises by evident reasoning, viz.: All the Apostles received the Holy Spirit; but St. John was Apostle, therefore St. John received the Holy Spirit.
(b) Propositions or Conclusions deduced from one premise revealed, and the other only evident to reason, viz.: A baptized child is sanctified; but this child is baptized, therefore this child is sanctified. Or again: A consecrated host is to be adored; but this host is consecrated, therefore this host is to be adored. Or again: Whatever is defined by an Ecuмenical Council is to be believed; but the Council of Trent was an Ecuмenical Council, therefore its definitions are to be believed.
Are these conclusions to be considered as coming under the object of faith? And again, what are we to hold in connection with the object of faith, with regard to singular propositions contained in revealed universal propositions, or propositions virtually contained in revealed truths?
A conclusion as such is not an object of faith, but merely the result of human reasoning. And a proposition, to be of faith, must be immediately revealed by God, and received on His authority. Propositions or conclusions such as are here given, may be said to be more certain than the conclusions arrived at by mere natural science, because they are founded on and deduced from revealed dogmas; and they have, therefore, a certain amount of divine authority, as they are so closely connected with revealed truths.
7. A rule is laid down for deciding whether a conclusion of this kind belongs to faith or not, namely: If the conclusion be formally and immediately contained in the premises, or in the premise which is of faith as a part is contained in the whole or a singular in a universal, and if the deduction be only a further explanation of the premises, and does not introduce any new idea into the definition, such a proposition or conclusion would be the object of faith, and is to be believed as such. If it be not formally, but only virtually contained in the premises as an effect in a cause, the conclusion is not to be believed by divine faith because it is not the object of faith, but a deduction of reason. It is, however, often said to belong to faith indirectly, in as much as by denying a conclusion of this kind the revealed premises from which it is deduced are indirectly denied.
Other propositions, which are not clearly and immediately revealed by God, or which are not deduced by reason from divine truths, but are taught by the Fathers and Theologians as certain and true, are said to be received on ecclesiastical faith. They are not the objects of divine faith, and they are received by something more than mere human faith, and may be said, therefore, to be believed by a certain ecclesiastical faith. This faith is sometimes called divine (though in reality it is not divine), because its act may proceed from the divine virtue which is in us, and the dispositions which it creates in the soul.
As to these few questions which I have here introduced, we have no definition of the Church, and I only state the received teaching of Theologians on such points for the purpose of meeting captious objections, after the manner of Dr. Littledale's “Plain Reasons,” that may, from time to time, be urged against the Catholic faith and doctrine. For this purpose, it is necessary to explain even critical questions from a Catholic point of view that the enemies of the Church may not be credited with inventing objections that she has long ago considered and rejected, and thereby do harm to the faithful and others.
(pp. 6-9)
https://archive.org/details/creedexplainedor00devirich (https://archive.org/details/creedexplainedor00devirich)
-
Bishop Sanborn’s famous tract condemning what he calls “opinionism” is the seminal manifesto for the dogmatic sedevacantist position.
Also, Lad, why are the sedeprivationists more dogmatic?
-
That's your problem right there.
You can't argue with deluded zealots -- of any stripe. If you won't take the most basic advice most members of this forum would give you -- to just LEAVE THEM ALONE -- then any further advice we would give you would just be wasted here.
There's nothing you can say, no slam-dunk argument, that's going to make them say, "You know, you might be right..." NO. Not gonna happen.
Look up in the Bible the passage about putting your pearls before swine. Google it on DRBO.org.
Never argue with a crazy person. 10 year olds used to be taught that pearl of wisdom.
Well said, I totally agree. Best for you to simply stay out of that chat room.
"....Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. This is Canon 1556, which I failed to quote in my book, though I did state the fact of the law and the ecclesiastical admonition. These words mean: “The First Chair is judged by no one,” which means that none of the pope’s subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the throne of St. Peter. We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone which whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is a legitimate pope. Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them.
I should be able to stop right here, because a good Catholic should be satisfied with this directive. Holy Mother Church tells her children, “The legitimacy of the pope is not your concern; it is the concern of Christ only, because He alone has authority over the pope, and He has the power to solve any problems that may arise from his being illegitimate, should the case ever occur.” A sensible Catholic should be able to deuce from this directive that the legitimacy (or lack of it) of the pope does not bear on his religious obligations, that his religious obligations are no different whether the pope is legal or illegal, and that concern about the matter is a distraction from his relationship to Christ and the Church, a source of spiritual disquiet.
Therefore, to the extent that is possible, for the sake of his peace of mind and attention to his own spiritual welfare, the sensible Catholic should resolve to stay as far away from sedevacantists and their writings as possible. Furthermore, any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, no matter what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy..." - Fr. Wathen, "Revisiting Sedevacantism" May 1, 2005
-
Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.
Exactly. That is because the same goes for every flavor of the solutions to the question of "How can these popes be popes?". The question is unprecedented in history, so because of that vacuum, anyone can claim to be "an expert". There isn't one person in the world that knows with certainty of faith the answer. That is why I do not waste much time debating or discussing the matter. My lifelong practice has been that if a person lies to me or teaches to me errors about the things that I know, I just discard everything that they say. Everything that they say goes in one ear and out the other. So, with regard to the Vatican II, Vatican II popes & bishops & priests, I do not listen to anything they say.
The Dimond's have their opinions, their sede position, I have mine, I have absolutely nothing against them. I have never had any problem with sedes or Novus Ordo's, or R&R, and to be blunt if anyone does not want to have "communion" with me, good riddance.
-
Also, Lad, why are the sedeprivationists more dogmatic?
It's unrelated. Bishop Sanborn was a hardline dogmatic SV before he veered toward sedeprivationism. Dimond brothers reject sedeprivationism and they're arguably the most dogmatic SVs out there ... except, strangely enough, they don't buy into the whole una cuм thing.
-
So, every position rests at least implicitly on syllogisms. So, for instance, here's an (admittedly oversimplified) SV argument for the sake of illustration:
Major: Catholic Church cannot promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms the faith.
Minor: Novus Ordo Mass displeases God and harms the faith.
Conclusion: Church that promulgated the NOM cannot be the Catholic Church.
See, I actually hold to this myself.
I agree with the dogmatic sedevacantists that the Major is de fide, a direct result of the Church's indefectibility.
Here's the problem. See the Minor? Did the Church ever teach that the NOM displeases God and harms the faith? No. One could definitely CONCLUDE that and have MORAL certainty regarding that assessment. But only the Church can endow any particular proposition or judgment with dogmatic certainty.
Now, I cited the principle of logic earlier, the "weakest link" principle, which states that the conclusion can only be as strong as its weakest premise. (periorem partem sequitur conclusio). What this means is that because the MINOR (one of the premises for the conclusion) is NOT dogmatically certain, then the CONCLUSION also cannot be dogmatically certain.
I could be pretty darn certain of this, morally certain, even willing to be my life on it, but I CANNOT HAVE DOGMATIC CERTAINTY (i.e. the CERTAINTY OF FAITH) regarding the Conclusion, because I do not have the certainty for faith that the NOM displeases God and harms the faith. DOGMATIC certainty is a very high bar that can only come from the Church's teaching authority.
I could go through example after example of the DOGMATIC SV conclusions. At some point, if I have time, I might go through +Sanborn's "opinionism" paper and look at all the examples there with this in mind. You will never find an SV conclusion that has ALL the premises being dogmatically certain.
But, they'll argue, it's a rock-solid argument, and so therefore the conclusion is dogmatic. No, it's not. It could be logically sound (i.e. have a decisive logical structure) and all the premises could be true, but unless both premises are true with dogmatic certainty, the conclusion cannot be dogmatically certain.
I'll get back to Father Chazal's points later, as well as bring up the so-called "theological notes" (which are something that the dogmatic SVs fail to take into account).
-
Here's one from the Dimond Brothers. I actually wrote them about this issue, their dogmatism, and mentioned the theological notes, etc., hoping that they might turn away from their dogmatic SVism and dogmatic anti-BODism. Let's just say they did not agree :laugh1:.
MAJOR: It is a dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
MINOR: Baptism of Desire would undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
CONCLUSION: Baptism of Desire is heretical.
Certainly their Major is correct, since the Council of Trent clearly taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Check.
But wait? What does "necessary" mean? Things can be necessary in different ways (absolutely or relatively, by necessity of means and necessity of precept, etc.). Theologians later unanimously agreed that the Sacrament is ABSOLUTELY necessary by NECESSITY OF MEANS. But, guess what, theologians do not establish dogma. Now, Sanborn and Cekada argue that they can, but I disagree. But let's grant, for the sake of argument, that theologians authoritatively interpreted Trent so that it is dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means.
But the counter argument is this: a disagreement with the Minor. I do not buy it, and I think it's wrong, but here it is. Well, even with Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, because Baptism of Desire receives its efficacy from the Sacrament; one cannot have a desire for Baptism without it having the Sacrament of Baptism for its object. Trent does not explicitly state that the ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and did not dogmatically rule out that, as St. Robert Bellarmine held, the Sacrament could be received in voto. Trent did not DOGMATICALLY RULE OUT that interpretation. I think it's wrong, but I cannot be DOGMATICALLY certain about it. So the MINOR is not dogmatically certain. So the conclusion that Baptism of Desire, per se, is heretical does not follow DOGMATICALLY.
I think that the world would be better served if we returned to the scholastic mentality of expressing all arguments as syllogisms so they can be analyzed, instead of having to read through 900+ page books of rambling by people like S&S. These books read like long novels. St. Thomas was extremely concise and precise ... the reason for his brillianace.
I don't care what anyone argues or writes, I immediately start converting the argument into syllogisms, and that's what helps me come to my own conclusions.
I actually agree with the minor. But I cannot assert it dogmatically. So even though I agree with the Dimonds that Baptism of Desire is an error, I cannot agree with them that it is an error with the note of heresy, i.e. that dogma absolutely requires the rejection of Baptism of Desire.
-
It's unrelated. Bishop Sanborn was a hardline dogmatic SV before he veered toward sedeprivationism. Dimond brothers reject sedeprivationism and they're arguably the most dogmatic SVs out there ... except, strangely enough, they don't buy into the whole una cuм thing.
Funny enough, I see many people related to Sedepriv that seem more dogmatic, as the fathers that spoke against the "Opinionism". Also, +Des Lauriers seemed to be kinda dogmatic with the Thesis. But I don't know if the majority are like these.
-
@Ladislaus
I agree that the positions concerning the question whether the antipopes are popes don't make anyone a heretic. But I think that the BoD-topic looks different.
MAJOR: It is a dogma of Trent that the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
MINOR: All variants of Baptism of Desire deny that the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
CONCLUSION: Since Trent, Baptism of Desire is heretical.
The Council of Trent teaches how an adult can be translated from the state of enemy of God to the State of Grace, and strictly forbids any other teachings concerning the topic right in the introduction of cuм hoc tempore. The process taught by Trent includes the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Trent doesn't leave space for an interpretation as a necessity of precept. The reception of the Sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification ( = translation to the State of Grace), and the candidate asks the Church for the (supernatural) Faith and receives the Faith (besides Hope and Love) by infusion by receiving the Sacrament.
-
MINOR: All variants of Baptism of Desire deny that the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
I disagree.
#1 ... define necessary (absolutely or relatively, by necessity of means or necessity of precept).
So for instance, the reception of Holy Communion is also taught to be necessary for salvation, but it's necessary by necessity of precept. Trent did not define the degree of necessity. Subsequent theologians clarified that what was meant was absolute necessity by necessity of means. But theological opinion isn't dogma.
#2 ... Trent never stated the the actual reception of the Sacrament was necessary for salvation. St. Robert Bellarmine believed that one could receive the Sacrament in voto.
In the case of Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament would still be operating as the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Confession was necessary to return to a state of grace for those who had fallen out of grace after Baptism. But in that case, Trent taught that the Sacrament was necessary saltem in voto, "at least in desire". In fact, St. Alphonsus argues from that in favor of Baptism of Desire.
Now, I hold that these are mistaken opinions in that there's a tremendous difference between Baptism and Confession (as Trent itself explicitly states), but one could ARGUE without heresy that this isn't one of them.
Now, I reject BoD for many reasons, but I do not believe that a BoD of a St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus is HERETICAL. I think they're wrong and mistaken, but not heretical.
MOST variants of BoD are heretical on other counts. Most BoDers formulate their opinion in a heretical manner, actually denying the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. Most of them stray into Pelagianism. Most of them also deny the necessity of explicit Catholic faith for salvation.
-
I disagree.
#1 ... define necessary (absolutely or relatively, by necessity of means or necessity of precept).
Read my comment again (spoiler: it's not necessity of precept)
#2 ... Trent never stated the the actual reception of the Sacrament was necessary for salvation.
Read cuм hoc tempore. It is a description of the process how adults are are justified. The process includes the reception of the Sacrament. cuм hoc tempore describes that in all detail. You just have to read it.
St. Robert Bellarmine believed that one could receive the Sacrament in voto.
St. Robert Bellarmine is irrelevant. Trent is infallible, St. Robert Bellarmine isn't. He may err. Trent doesn't err. You didn't need any Magisterium to interpret dogma to know that sedevacantism is just an opinon. Now, here you don't need any St. Robert Bellarmine to interpret Trent. Trent is the dogma. St. Robert is irrelevant. Read St. Robert with respect to questions where you don't have infallible dogma.
In the case of Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament would still be operating as the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it.
Read Trent before contradicting dogma. Trent explains how the actual reception of the Sacrament is necessary. The voto also is necessary, but not sufficient. Much more is necessary. The decree has several chapters.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Confession was necessary to return to a state of grace for those who had fallen out of grace after Baptism. But in that case, Trent taught that the Sacrament was necessary saltem in voto, "at least in desire". In fact, St. Alphonsus argues from that in favor of Baptism of Desire.
St. Alphonsus is irrelevant. Trent is infallible, St. Alphonsus isn't. He may err. Trent doesn't err. St. Alphonsus quoted the wrong decree, which indicates an error of his. Also, he thereby added to cuм hoc tempore, which is forbidden by that same decree.
Now, I hold that these are mistaken opinions in that there's a tremendous difference between Baptism and Confession (as Trent itself explicitly states), but one could ARGUE without heresy that this isn't one of them.
They are mistaken, because Trent is solemn extraordinary infallible Magisterium.
Now, I reject BoD for many reasons, but I do not believe that a BoD of a St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus is HERETICAL. I think they're wrong and mistaken, but not heretical.
Sure, I know. That's why I wrote my previous comment.
Trent doesn't leave the question open, whether necessity of means or of precept.
-
Ladislaus,
the canonizations of St. Robert and St. Alphonsus don't express the idea that their books and teachings were free of errors, free of material heresies.
Theologians dispute, whether material heretics are separated from the Church. The canonizations guarantee that Robert and Alphonsus are in heaven, and St. Vinzenz of Lerins says (paraphrasing): even Saints erred, because God wants to test us, whether we prefer adoring humans above truth.
Theologians do not dispute, whether the dogmatic teachings of cuм hoc tempore are nothing but pure truth ("fallen from heaven"). (And if some should do, who cares?)
-
Ladislaus,
the canonizations of St. Robert and St. Alphonsus don't express the idea that their books and teachings were free of errors, free of material heresies.
Theologians dispute, whether material heretics are separated from the Church. The canonizations guarantee that Robert and Alphonsus are in heaven, and St. Vinzenz of Lerins says (paraphrasing): even Saints erred, because God wants to test us, whether we prefer adoring humans above truth.
Theologians do not dispute, whether the dogmatic teachings of cuм hoc tempore are nothing but pure truth ("fallen from heaven"). (And if some should do, who cares?)
You're right Marion, speaking specifically on the sacrament of baptism, Trent teaches very clearly that "...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..." but then what they say next effectively kills any possibility of a BOD by saying ...."or the desire thereof."
What Lad likes to do is he likes to strive to find a middle ground is all.
-
I would like a refutation of not sedevacantism itself, but the radical strain promoted by the Dimonds which leads people to refuse communion with Catholics just because they aren't sede. I was in a chat earlier and this Dimondite called me a skeptic, claimed I was blind, and that I have no faith just because I choose not to become sede as I don't want to risk being in schism. I need some arguments to show that sedevacantism isn't something that you are bound under pain of mortal sin to embrace. Does Fr. Chazal have any good arguments? I know he wrote a book against dogmatic sedevacantism. This Dimondite strain of sedevacantism seems very dangerous and schismatic.
Cryptinox, I caution you to avoid all conversations with sedes regarding sedeism, lest, as many have, you catch the bug yourself. The main thing you should keep in mind always is that sedeism's very nature is divisive. As your OP demonstrates, watch for it and you will see this with your own eyes in your travels, and make no mistake about it, it has proven itself a useful tool in dividing the faithful and by design will continue to do so.
-
Guys, split off your BoD aspect of the discussion into another thread, or this whole thread is going to the Feeneyism ghetto.
You're getting deep into the weeds on that issue here.
-
I agree with Ladislaus that we need to use explicit syllogisms more in day-to-day online discussions. You pretty much have to convert arguments into syllogisms yourself, otherwise. It's the only way to think clearly.