Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 17211 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #190 on:** November 11, 2012, 11:49:09 PM »

There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'.

bowler · « **Reply #191 on:** November 12, 2012, 11:57:09 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Right, what Pope Pius IX is telling us is, if theologians, especially theologians known to be solid, orthodox and traditional and approved as such by the Church for a long time, whose manuals and writings were long used in seminaries etc, are unanimously agreed a dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such, then we are bound to hold that that dogma or doctrine has been precisely defined as such.

That's your own take. I posted what Piux IX actually said, and he says "by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” That is a defined term. What was taught for 400 years is not "universali et constanti". That the souls of dead unbaptized children suffer sense pain in limbo was the unanimous teaching of the theologinas for like at least 800 years, till a pope defined dogmatically that the to then "universali et constanti", was incorrect.

Besides, the theologians have not even defined in one place what baptism of desire is and who it may save, and where they go (purgatory, or heaven).

Quote

Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be
manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

Nishant · « **Reply #192 on:** November 12, 2012, 04:51:46 PM »

But theologians never held St.Augustine's view was of the faith or that the contrary opinion was worthy of censure, on the contrary it was freely discussed in the schools.

Theologians have held that BoD is a dogma or at least a Catholic doctrine that cannot be denied. Show me a single theologian of the last several hundred years who has held otherwise.

"Universal and constant consent" only applies after some point where all agree the Church has by then definitively settled the question.

It is not true that the precise specifics have not been laid out in great detail. St.Alphonsus, who himself mentions the opinion of various other theologians and shows this is the proper way to proceed explains the doctrine precisely.

Quote from: St.Alphonsus

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment [Comment: Hence, Purgatory].

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment [Comment: Hence, Heaven] as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ.

Of course, when both guilt and punishment are remitted, the person goes to heaven, whereas when guilt is remitted but punishment remains, the person will be purified in purgative fire before his entrance into heaven.

You will find a similar doctrine in all the theologians and manualists.

It is only today that anybody and everybody makes a pretense to teach his own private opinions as theology without any recourse at all to what Catholic authorities in the field have unanimously maintained. This is not how the Doctors themselves proceeded, this is not a legitimate way at all.

bowler · « **Reply #193 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

But theologians never held St.Augustine's view was of the faith or that the contrary opinion was worthy of censure, on the contrary it was freely discussed in the schools.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
“Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several
centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the
Church from the beginning. Furthermore, the teaching that one can be saved “outside” the Church by “invincible ignorance” was also the common and almost unanimous teaching at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common teaching (or common error) at any particular time does not replace the universal and constant teaching of all Catholic theologians throughout history on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

bowler · « **Reply #194 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Theologians have held that BoD is a dogma

You just went full cirlce back to what started this discussion. Only one theologian erroneously said it is defide. Everyone knows that BOD is not defide, a dogma. Your quote just shows that we can't rely on the word of one theologian.