« Last post by Anothercon Variant on Today at 10:11:54 AM »
Great analyses by Matthew and Lad.
I will add that she has the Jezebel spirit.
I will add that she has the Jezebel spirit.
It didn't start in the early 1900s. It started with the early Jesuits of the 16th century, who started to chip away at EENS dogma after the discovery of the new world. Then the enemies of the Church exploited Baptism of Desire to gut EENS dogma, and the gutting of EENS dogma led to the novel and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II..
While that was happening to undermine faith, when Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Communist infiltrators among the Cardinals uncanonically (and illegitimately) ousted Pope Gregory XVII and replaced him with Agent Roncalli. We've had a series of infiltraors take over the papacy ever since, wrecking the Church.
It's really that simple.
So bad has the destruction of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology been that the majority of Traditional Catholics still don't get it. Rahner understood, but somehow Trad Catholics don't. Archbishop Lefebvre missed the mark, and therefore so does the entire SSPX. And some of the most stauch (sedevacantist) Traditionalists are at the same time some of the worst when it comes to understanting the core theological problem here. Most Trads tend to think that the crisis began in 1962, and so they cling to the corrupted theology of the 1950s as the epitome of Catholicism, whereas it was that same theological Zeitgeist that brought us Vatican II, and so we see the SSPX slouching towards a repeated of the same thing.
As bodeens pointed out, Rahner called out the erosion of EENS ("greater hope for salvation" he called it) as the most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II and marvelled that no one even noticed and that there was almost no opposition to that particular aspect of the Council. That's because the job of destroying it had progressed so much that everybody thought this was Traditonal Catholicism. It was universall taught in the seminaries, so that Archbishop Lefebvre himself believed that infidels could be saved.
I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy." Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds. St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it. People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will. From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus. I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.Weill said!
Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled. I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for. But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD. As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society. Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD. But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds. At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.
Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted. There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.
Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well. This is their chief mistake. They don't understand the theological notes. And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely. There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians. Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave. Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense. That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.
Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology. So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD. But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so. I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.
With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith. Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today. I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds. And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude. I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.
For lurkers reading this article, and who are still learning about the war against Christ and life, all three of these SC justices are Jєωs.
Unfortunately folks get hung up on the "formal declaration" bit, ignoring the Divine Law/no need for formal declaration issue.Yes. I recommend Fr. Paul Kramer's excellent two volumes of "To Deceive the Elect" on this topic.