Author Topic: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops (Read 44102 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #270 on:** July 12, 2022, 10:36:02 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 12, 2022, 08:16:36 AM

BOD is a serious theological notion that concerns the faith. Despite your novel readings - want to go own about private judgment, again? that would further expose your inconsistency - of Trent, both the Council and the Catechsim - it's clear the OUM has taught BOD.

1. Catechumens are certainly not part of the faithful:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/

2. Not every theologian after the Council of Trent categorized the "baptism of desire" as de fide. Nor did they all cite the Council has one of the sources of this doctrine, as being taught from the Council. If the doctrine was professed in the Council of Trent, there would be no mistaking it's presence:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/

3. Regarding the Catechism of the Council of Trent, I think the Dimonds make a very good point,

especially located in the sub-heading:

"PROOF THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM WAS TO BE PASSED ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL"

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/

4. Per Pius XII, only those who are baptized and profess the true faith are members of the Church, and it is precisely the members who constitute the Church.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-augustine-condemns-xaviersem/msg687601/#msg687601

5. Per St. Augustine, writing at the end of his life:

Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-predestined-will-not-end-their-life-without-the-sacrament-of-the-mediator/msg835235/?topicseen#msg835235

6. The Dimonds cite Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

"if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/

Stubborn · « **Reply #271 on:** July 13, 2022, 05:13:36 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on July 12, 2022, 09:17:27 PM

Is it really consistent to posit a spatial universality, and yet reject Vatican II nonetheless?

Has any other council exceeded Vatican II, in regards to the proportion of prelates that were in attendance? Or the proportion of theological consensus?

Well, spatial universality is bible, it is the foundation, it's how the faithful know what the truth is, and in knowing what the truth is, we know truth from error no matter the source. We reject V2 because we know it preaches error based on what the Church has always taught, i.e. based on the magisterium of the Church.

Last Tradhican used a marvelous analogy to exemplify this:
"U.S. Treasury agents who specialize in forgery detection, when they are being trained, are never shown any forgeries, they are strictly immersed in learning every minute detail of the real thing. That way, they can spot the forgery instantly..."

This means that Catholics have been trained to know what's right since Pentecost, so spotting the forgery is or should actually be the norm - but many of the faithful accept the error, in part because it's what they really want and in part because of the source.

I don't know about the proportion of V2 prelates and theological consensus vs other councils, but it seems like Trent would be comparable.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #272 on:** July 13, 2022, 05:42:36 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on July 12, 2022, 09:25:45 PM

Aren't those two sentences a contradiction?

The Magisterium, to them, consists of whatever the current popes and bishops in union with them say.

I can see the point that Stubborn was making in this thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648421/#msg648421

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648436/#msg648436

Yes, you could see it as a contradiction, but it is not a contradiction of my making.

This is related to the issue of "private judgment," which Sedes accuse R & R of. Sedes believe that a true pope and the bishops in union with him are indefectible when they agree in a teaching collectively as the Ecclesia Docens. So that would mean that V2 and the New Mass are products of the indefectible Church, being taught by the Conciliar popes and the bishops in union with them.

Nonetheless, Sedes reject V2 and the New Mass. They do so by doing what they accuse Stubborn of, no? They weigh the teaching of V2 and the New Mass against what has been handed down - against Tradition.

That's where I see the contradiction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #273 on:** July 13, 2022, 06:40:32 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 05:42:36 AM

Nonetheless, Sedes reject V2 and the New Mass. They do so by doing what they accuse Stubborn of, no? They weigh the teaching of V2 and the New Mass against what has been handed down - against Tradition.

That's where I see the contradiction.

No, there's a big difference here. Where private judgment does play a role in faith (as taught clearly by Vatican I) is in ascertaining the credibility and legitimacy of the teaching authority. We determine, with our reason, based on the "motives of credibility", whether the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of God and or Our Lord.

SVs see (with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly and repeatedly stated this in public) that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the one true Church.

We're not talking about an isolated error here or there in the Magisterium, but about a new religion, with a new theological system (and Magisterium) that is alien to that of the Traditional Catholic Church, with a new non-Catholic Rite of Mass, with its new saints and new Canon Law. Had there been no New Mass and it was just a question of a couple disputed passages in Vatican II, we would have no Traditional movement. And it doesn't take a theologian to see that the Conciliar Church is something different from and alien to the Catholic Church. This is a judgment that the simple faithful can make. We don't recognize in the teaching of the V2 papal claimants the "Voice of the Shepherd".

DecemRationis · « **Reply #274 on:** July 13, 2022, 06:50:13 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 13, 2022, 06:40:32 AM

No, there's a big difference here. Where private judgment does play a role in faith (as taught clearly by Vatican I) is in ascertaining the credibility and legitimacy of the teaching authority. We determine, with our reason, based on the "motives of credibility", whether the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of God and or Our Lord.

SVs see (with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly and repeatedly stated this in public) that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the one true Church.

We're not talking about an isolated error here or there in the Magisterium, but about a new religion, with a new theological system (and Magisterium) that is alien to that of the Traditional Catholic Church, with a new non-Catholic Rite of Mass, with its new saints and new Canon Law. Had there been no New Mass and it was just a question of a couple disputed passages in Vatican II, we would have no Traditional movement. And it doesn't take a theologian to see that the Conciliar Church is something different from and alien to the Catholic Church. This is a judgment that the simple faithful can make. We don't recognize in the teaching of the V2 papal claimants the "Voice of the Shepherd".

And when does that happen? When Paul VI was elected, when did that happen? Because once you determine the pope is pope, he speaks with the authority of God, and then any scrutiny should stop, and his teachings and those of the bishops in union with him should be accepted. So some teaching or something came along that was scrutinized and weighed and found lacking (private judgment).

Again, I'm wondering when, with Paul VI for example, it was determined he wasn't credible. And what was he before that?

I think Vatican I was talking about the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ based on "motives of credibility," and not individual popes legitimately elected.

2Vermont · « **Reply #275 on:** July 13, 2022, 06:55:58 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 12, 2022, 09:09:43 AM

You can't have it both ways: you either accept the concept of indefectibility espoused by Daly and co., who accept the OUM on BOD, or you don't. You can't pick and choose depending on the issue (indefectibility, or BOD). You can either define OUM like Stubborn, and be consistent, or define indefectibility like Daly and co. (which would require you to accept BOD as OUM), and stop your nonsense about rejecting the teaching of BOD.

I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".

Anyone who wants to argue this can join us here [if they dare]:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-feeney-on-trent-(session-vi-chapter-4)-or-the-catechism-of-trent-on-bod/

epiphany · « **Reply #276 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:00:11 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 06:55:58 AM

I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".

The Church is clear.

Catechism of Trent

But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class of men, the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.

Baltimore catechism

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

---
God makes things simple for us.
We complicate the Catholic Faith by our fallen nature

DecemRationis · « **Reply #277 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:11:49 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 06:55:58 AM

I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".

While the exact parameters of BOD may not be clear, that the Church teaches that there could be justification and salvation by votum without receipt of the sacrament is clear. I agree with Monsignor Fenton here:

Quote

The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm

I think the above is part of the OUM; Msg. Fenton says it is "revealed teaching." But what I think doesn't matter: can you name a single pope, bishop, theologian (other than perhaps Father Feeney) who would say it isn't? BOD, the concept above, has been universally taught since Trent by the Magisterium.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #278 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:18:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 13, 2022, 06:40:32 AM

No, there's a big difference here. Where private judgment does play a role in faith (as taught clearly by Vatican I) is in ascertaining the credibility and legitimacy of the teaching authority. We determine, with our reason, based on the "motives of credibility", whether the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of God and or Our Lord.

SVs see (with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly and repeatedly stated this in public) that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the one true Church.

We're not talking about an isolated error here or there in the Magisterium, but about a new religion, with a new theological system (and Magisterium) that is alien to that of the Traditional Catholic Church, with a new non-Catholic Rite of Mass, with its new saints and new Canon Law. Had there been no New Mass and it was just a question of a couple disputed passages in Vatican II, we would have no Traditional movement. And it doesn't take a theologian to see that the Conciliar Church is something different from and alien to the Catholic Church. This is a judgment that the simple faithful can make. We don't recognize in the teaching of the V2 papal claimants the "Voice of the Shepherd".

Lad, I didn't down thumb you there. I rarely down thumb anyway (can't recall doing it), and just try to use the up arrow if and when I do utilize the feature.

Same thing to you, Vermont.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #279 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:20:36 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on July 12, 2022, 10:36:02 PM

1. Catechumens are certainly not part of the faithful:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/

2. Not every theologian after the Council of Trent categorized the "baptism of desire" as de fide. Nor did they all cite the Council has one of the sources of this doctrine, as being taught from the Council. If the doctrine was professed in the Council of Trent, there would be no mistaking it's presence:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/

3. Regarding the Catechism of the Council of Trent, I think the Dimonds make a very good point,

especially located in the sub-heading:

"PROOF THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM WAS TO BE PASSED ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL"

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/

4. Per Pius XII, only those who are baptized and profess the true faith are members of the Church, and it is precisely the members who constitute the Church.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-augustine-condemns-xaviersem/msg687601/#msg687601

5. Per St. Augustine, writing at the end of his life:

Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-predestined-will-not-end-their-life-without-the-sacrament-of-the-mediator/msg835235/?topicseen#msg835235

6. The Dimonds cite Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

"if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/

Trad123,

We are not having an extensive BOD debate here. I brought up BOD for a specific reason in light of a discussion with Lad, which should be apparent if you read through the thread.

DR

2Vermont · « **Reply #280 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:24:17 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 07:11:49 AM

While the exact parameters of BOD may not be clear, that the Church teaches that there could be justification and salvation by votum without receipt of the sacrament is clear. I agree with Monsignor Fenton here:

I think the above is part of the OUM; Msg. Fenton says it is "revealed teaching." But what I think doesn't matter: can you name a single pope, bishop, theologian (other than perhaps Father Feeney) who would say it isn't? BOD, the concept above, has been universally taught since Trent by the Magisterium.

I don't know of any theologian, etc that denies BOD, and I'm not saying it isn't a revealed teaching of the Church. I'm questioning exactly what is the revealed teaching and whether it has been taught clearly. I'm saying that since catechisms seem to contradict [sometimes it says you can not get to Heaven without water baptism; other times it seems to say one can, sometimes one can go to Limbo, but not quite Heaven, etc, etc], then it's not the same as someone questioning some other teaching of the Church where there are no apparent contradictions or possibilities to interpret it differently. Take that AND how BOD is now "everyone can get to Heaven", and you have a mess.

In the end, what I'm really saying here for the purpose of this thread [because as you say this isn't a discussion about BOD] is that I don't think you can claim Lad is being contradictory in his thinking on the indefectibility of the Church here because of the fact that Church teaching on BOD is not clear cut.

2Vermont · « **Reply #281 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:25:55 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 07:18:49 AM

Lad, I didn't down thumb you there. I rarely down thumb anyway (can't recall doing it), and just try to use the up arrow if and when I do utilize the feature.

Same thing to you, Vermont.

I know you didn't. Epiphony loves to down thumb me at every opportunity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #282 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:57:34 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 07:18:49 AM

Lad, I didn't down thumb you there. I rarely down thumb anyway (can't recall doing it), and just try to use the up arrow if and when I do utilize the feature.

Same thing to you, Vermont.

No worries. I don't care at all about downthumbs and rarely notice them.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #283 on:** July 13, 2022, 07:59:57 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 07:24:17 AM

I'm questioning exactly what is the revealed teaching and whether it has been taught clearly.

I just posted this on the other thread there.

Quote

So, people claim that Catholics MUST believe in BoD. OK. Well, what must I believe about it? Apart from the fact that the expression "Baptism of Desire" appears absolutely nowhere in the Catholic Magisterium, there appears to be a different understanding or version of "BoD" for each person that believes in it. Is it just for catechumens? Does it "work" for infidels? I've even heard some apply the term to validly-baptized Protestants. It's become codeword for "sincerity saves".
...
BoD is fraught with uncertainty, lack of clarity, and a variety of interpretations. That is prima facie evidence that it's not de fide or even really TAUGHT as such. In order to believe something, you have to know what you're required to believe about it.

You can't just "believe" a phrase ... "BoD". Belief involves believing in and accepting actual propositions. I find no indication of what propositions I am required to believe about BoD. What is it? What does it supply for and what does it not? What are the requirements for someone to have "BoD"? Can a worshipper of The Great Thumb in the jungles of Africa have "BoD" ... or just formal Catholic catechumens? [BTW, there's ZERO support anywhere in the Magisterium for BoD applying to anyone other than formal catechumens. Yet those who would use BoD as a weapon to undermine EENS try to hide behind the Doctors and Trent to prove their position that infidels can be saved, when those sources do nothing of the sort.]

Really, the only common denominator regarding the various expressions of "BoD" is ... the Sacrament of Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. And that proposition was condemned as heresy by Trent.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #284 on:** July 13, 2022, 08:22:36 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 07:24:17 AM

In the end, what I'm really saying here for the purpose of this thread [because as you say this isn't a discussion about BOD] is that I don't think you can claim Lad is being contradictory in his thinking on the indefectibility of the Church here because of the fact that Church teaching on BOD is not clear cut.

He asserts the OUM against Stubborn and others on indefectibility while rejecting the OUM on the possibility of salvation by votum or by some faith/desire short of, and without, the receipt of the sacrament of baptism.

OUM yes here, no there.

That's a contradiction.

Author Topic: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops (Read 44102 times)

trad123

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

Stubborn

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

Ladislaus

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

2Vermont

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

epiphany

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

2Vermont

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

2Vermont

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

Ladislaus

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

Ladislaus

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops

DecemRationis

Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops