Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Crisis in the Church / Re: Can approved theologians teach heresy?
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 06:47:39 AM »
Ok, and we know the Magisterium teaches the fathers are infallible when unanimous or virtually unanimous.
Does the Magisterium teach whether the same unanimity of theologians is binding on the consciences of Catholics? I am not speaking of individual theologians, but when taken as a whole, are they infallible or at least safe?

No Gregory, it is incomplete therefore misleading to say that the fathers are infallible when unanimous or virtually unanimous - that is actually a half truth and as such is dangerous to the Church, therefore dangerous to our faith.

The First Vatican Council never taught that unanimity of the Fathers was even a criteria, let alone the only criteria necessary for infallibility. Nor did V1 teach that Ecumenical Councils are infallible in and of themselves. While these ideas are wide spread, they are errors, errors which helped get us in this crisis in the first place.

Simply, "The Magisterium" is nothing other than the Church teaching us, that is what the Church does. The Church was established by Christ to teach us how to get to heaven. What "The Magisterium" is not, is the Church's hierarchy, nor is "The Magisterium" the saints, theologians, Fathers, Doctors, etc..

The Ordinary magisterium is the daily exercise on the part of the Church, of instructing and guiding us, telling us what we must believe, teaching us Catholic doctrine. This teaching is infallible only when it echoes or agrees with the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and/or the decrees of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium teachings are infallible, these are those teachings which Catholic theologians, with a "universal and constant consent", regard as being of the faith; as Pope Pius IX teaches in Tuas Libenter.

Here, it is important to understand what "universal" and what "constant" means.

"Universal" means "in time as well as space". It means those teachings which the Church has taught always and everywhere. "Universal" does not mean unanimity of the hierarchy or of the theologians or Doctors or the bishops in council or scattered throughout the world, etc..

"Constant" means "since the time of the Apostles".  

The Extraordinary Magisterium is when the Church, with an unusual gesture, such as through a Council or through an ex-cathedra statement teaches us. These Solemn teachings are infallible.  

We're bound no less by either the Ordinary, OUM or the Extraordinary Magisterium. No less because what we're bound by is Catholic truth, it does not matter the method, it is the matter, the truth that binds us.





2
From Ven. Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God, Volume III:

673. Presently one of the executioners seized the hand of Jesus our Savior and placed it upon the auger-hole, while another hammered a large and rough nail through the palm. The veins and sinews were torn, and the bones of the sacred hand, which made the heavens and all that exists, were forced apart. When they stretched out the other hand, they found that it did not reach up to the auger-hole; for the sinews of the other arm had been shortened and the executioners had maliciously set the holes too far apart, as I have mentioned above. In order to overcome the difficulty, they took the chain, with which the Savior had been bound in the garden, and looping one end through a ring around his wrist, they, with unheard of cruelty, pulled the hand over the hole and fastened it with another nail. Thereupon they seized his feet, and placing them one above the other, they tied the same chain around both and stretched them with barbarous ferocity down to the third hole. Then they drove through  both feet a large nail into the Cross..............
3
Simply have a dress code and enforce it. Have a good attorney draft up a constitution requiring a modest dress code in the membership contract which will be signed by patrons. This way, you can't be sued for "discrimination".
4

Many thanks Motorede for your reply.

Hopefully here is the book you referred to: https://archive.org/stream/worksofbishophay03hayuoft#page/n439/mode/2up/search/salvation+outside+the+church

I will read through and see what the Bishop had to say.

I must say I am disappointed in the quality of debate into important matters of faith like this. I put up some questions that are ignored. I thought this was a discussion forum. Statements of belief are of no consequence. Dismissing opposite opinions by way of ignoring them or by giving them a thumbs-down is not how one should debate a question.

Again, Who says this teaching means nothing?

God gives all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)

5
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / Re: Unam Sanctam
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 03:32:01 AM »

That was only part of the argument. The rest you conveniently left out. Even if a Church teaching is only proximate to the faith, it would still be a mortal sin to deny it. Now if a fallible man teaches something is opposed to known dogma, then that fallible man is a heretic (regardless if he is fallible or not).

It was defined at Vatican I. What parts of Ordinary and Universal don't you understand? It is the Pope untied with the Bishops, in their ordinary day to day teaching throughout the world (universal). So, now the Church proposes dogmas and they don't know what they mean? How do you think heretics were condemned in the early years of the Church?
You have zero idea what your are talking about and you are totally confused - even you do not believe what you posted above.

6

Another denier of the dogma of infallibility of the Church! I think that's the 4th person now. Amazing how the Feeneyites are slowly coming out of the woodwork and revealing their true colors now.

First Vatican Council:

"...for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Stubborn, apparently you missed this post. It contains the information you've been asking for.

No, this is not the solemn definition of the Church's infallibility. This is not the dogma, this is the preface to the dogma, i.e. the solemn definition of papal infallibility which, as you so aptly demonstrate, is misunderstood when taken out of context as you do while the solemn definition itself is ignored. 

So for you to say; "Another denier of the dogma of infallibility of the Church! I think that's the 4th person now. Amazing how the Feeneyites are slowly coming out of the woodwork and revealing their true colors now." only demonstrates you do not even know what the dogma is, yet you accuse me and others of denying that which you have no knowledge of at all.

This issue of taking what the Church teaches out of context then wrongfully calling that dogma, will remain an ongoing issue so long as you continue to selectively quote infallible teachings.

7
orWhich teachings from "Vatican II" do you reject specifically (a couple will suffice)? Why do you reject them? What teaching/s of the Catholic Church are they opposed to?
8
It may be helpful for everyone to read this excellent article quoting various theologians on the effects of the Sacramental Character of Baptism. 
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2012/04/sacramental-seal-of-baptismthe.html

I am not interested in systematizing opinions at opposite ends of a spectrum. That's called stupidity.

I am interested in faithfully integrating into my own personal beliefs a truly synthetic understanding of all these issues, one that accounts for the contradictions and explains the apparent inconsistencies.

In that vein, it seems to me personally that the very best solution is the one that involves no denial of what has been constantly taught either by a unanimous consensus of fathers (That baptism in SOME way can be supplied) or theologians (That baptism, being an instrumental cause, is not a formal cause of our salvation, but sanctifying grace is, and can therefore be infused independently of the sacrament). 

That also includes the need on the part of everyone for an actual and explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity to be saved, at least since the promulgation of the gospel, that invincible ignorance is itself a punishment for sin, that the invincibly ignorant who die as such are damned, etc. That Sacramental Water Baptism is obliging on every man without exception. That this is necessary for membership within the Church and submission to the Roman Pontiff. 

SO, it would seem the best thing to say is that:

All who are to be saved will be baptized.
Not all who are baptized are saved.

All who abide by God's actual grace will receive greater gifts of faith, hope and charity, they will experience a virtual membership in the church for as long as they persevere in this justification. Think of this in the same sense as being in the brown scapular confraternity. Without being a Carmelite, you receive the graces of the Carmelite order.
Not all who receive these gifts persevere. In fact, most will not, for most are not saved.

But those who do persevere, the few, will infallibly be led to the Visible Society of the Church, Outside of which there is no salvation.
And these will be baptized. The testimonies from the histories of the saints bear explicit witness to the fact that this does happen.

There are two things I wish to simultaneously affirm to steer clear of error:

1. God can supply baptism for all his elect. But he can also dispense with a created instrument, which baptism is, and infuse grace without it. We HAVE to admit that God can do this.

2. But God has also clearly obligated all to water baptism and declared that there is no salvation outside the visible Church.

Rather than oppose these two things, I seek to reconcile the nuances without falling into the condemnations of Baius or the Jansenists.

Remember, THIS proposition is CONDEMNED:


Quote
1043 43. In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin.
Therefore, just as in penitents before absolution, through contrition they can obtain remission of sins, so too with catechumens.

But Guess what is also condemned?

Quote
1173  23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.

THe intellects notion of God derived from the observation of creation is NOT SUFFICIENT FOR FAITH! Do you get that? TO look at the stars and say, "There must be a God" is not Supernatural faith. It is human faith, deriving conclusions from human ingenuity and is NOT SALVIFIC. 

BUT, this is not a statement of destiny. Who knows the hidden judgments of Christ? And who knows how difficult it is to persevere without the sacraments! Perhaps the catechumen who has had charity infused and his sins remitted falls into secret mortal sin, and God decides to take him simply to manifest his justice and the hiddenness of his decisions?

And again, who knows but that the hypothetical man among wolves may catch a glimpse of the light and stumble out of the forest into a missionary camp because he followed nature's law to the best of his ability? And he would be baptized!

Ultimately I see no contradiction. The only contradiction comes from either end of the spectrum: "God not only can but DOES save people who are justified by baptism of desire and die untimely deaths!" I would say, show me these people.

And from the other end I would hear: "There is no justification at all without the reception of water baptism, ever." I would say this runs contrary to the fathers and the saints and the scholastics. And I don't feel daring enough to end up in  mortal sin by potentially exposing myself to proximate heresy via denial of that.

Therefore, I would say personally, that all though God CAN save anyone he wants to through BoD, at the end of the day, because he is God and does not Change and has manifested certain of his decisions and the reasons why he made them (Like leading honest natives to baptism in miraculous fashion!), that he will not change his methodology, and therefore all who WILL be saved ARE Saved in actuality by water baptism. This becomes clearer to me when you really read about what the sacramental Character IS. 


Quote
The nature and significance of the Character seem to us to come to this: that it is the signature which makes known that the members of the God-Man’s Mystical Body belong to their divine-human Head by assimilating them to Him, and testifies to their organic union with Him.
The Character of the members must be a reflection and replica of the theandric Character of this Head. For, to become other Christs, the members must share in the Character by which the Head becomes Christ.
But the signature whereby Christ’s humanity receives its divine dignity and consecration is nothing else than its Hypostatic Union with the Logos.
Consequently, the Character of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body must consist in a Seal which establishes and exhibits their relationship to the Logos: their Character must be analogous to the Hypostatic Union and grounded upon it. . . .
Thus, from every point of view the idea. . . is substantiated that the Character by which Christians are anointed and become Christians is analogous to the Hypostatic Union of the humanity with the Logos, which is what makes Christ what He is. (Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, Pages 582-587)
And Again


Quote
And in his Catechetical Lectures III, page 33, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem assures us:

If a person does not receive the Seal by Baptism, he will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This seems very bold language, but I only say that it is the Lord’s, not mine!


Furthermore there is a nice little syllogistic difficulty:

1. God does not command impossibilities for the just.
2. But people who have BoD are justified.
3. Therefore it is not impossible for them to be baptized.

1. It is not impossible for People justified by BoD to be baptized.
2. But some who appear in such a state die unbaptized.
3. It must then be concluded that they died unjust, for they failed to accomplish what they were obliged to do.
9
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / Re: Unam Sanctam
« Last post by An even Seven on Today at 02:04:57 AM »

Quote
That was only part of the argument. The rest you conveniently left out. Even if a Church teaching is only proximate to the faith, it would still be a mortal sin to deny it. Now if a fallible man teaches something is opposed to known dogma, then that fallible man is a heretic (regardless if he is fallible or not).
What if he doesn't understand the implications, or misunderstands the Church teachings, or never intends to teach something opposed to the known Dogma? Is he a heretic then?

Quote
It was defined at Vatican I. What parts of Ordinary and Universal don't you understand? It is the Pope untied with the Bishops, in their ordinary day to day teaching throughout the world (universal). So, now the Church proposes dogmas and they don't know what they mean? How do you think heretics were condemned in the early years of the Church?
The OUM was not specifically defined at Vatican I. The Solemn was defined and the requirements for it were given. The Council only said that the Church must believe with Catholic Faith those matters proposed by her OUM as Divinely Revealed. It doesn't define the requirements or explain whom the OUM consists of like it does for the Solemn; but like I said before it's not the opinions of theologians or doctors or Bishops which constitute infallibility unless it is universal or unanimously believed in all times as Divinely revealed. A saint saying something is de fide does not make it so, especially if there are Fathers who believe the opposite.
10
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / Re: Unam Sanctam
« Last post by An even Seven on Today at 01:46:49 AM »
What you are doing as treating the term "de fide" as if it meant "true". That is not what it means. It's a term for how serious the truth is, correspondingly how serious it would be to deny it. Catechisms, and sermons don't include theological notes because we are supposed to believe ALL of it. Generations upon generations of the faithful living and dying learned this way from apostolic times.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that St. Alphonus was mistaken on the theological note. It is still a truth of our religion. I can show you proof that even denying less than de fide truths would be a mortal sin.
As well, you are reversing the historical situation. You Feeneyites claim that solemnly defined dogma came first, and the St. Alphonus promoted something against solemnly defined dogma! Do you know what that means? That means the Saint completely lost the faith, and Church Herself lost the faith for not condemning him and positively approving of what he wrote. Look at the encyclical on the definition of the Assumption. It says anyone afterward who calls it into doubt has fallen completely away from the Catholic faith. The consequence of you Feeneyites is a disaster to the Faith. ...not St. Alphonsus.
St. Alphonsus was mistaken and BOD is not anything in regards to the Catholic faith other than a direct opposition to it. It definitely has no theological note.
As far as St. Alphonsus and denying defined Dogma, he still worded it in a way where the Sacrament of Baptism is still necessary but misunderstood Trent and thought Trent taught that the Sacrament could be received in Desire. He of course applied this only to catechumens and not the hypothetical anonymous non-Catholic like you do. St. Alphonsus denied that BOD removed the liability of punishment nor imprinted the Character of Baptism on ones soul, he even cited the wrong passage in Trent to support his understanding. You promote heresy. St. Alphonsus can be proven to be mistaken, erring in Good Faith. That's why he is a Saint and you are not Catholic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10