Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22

Author Topic: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops  (Read 43909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
  • Reputation: +6478/-1195
  • Gender: Female
Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
« Reply #285 on: July 13, 2022, 08:37:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 08:22:36 AM

    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.
    Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  The question is what does the OUM really teach on BOD, but it seems like that point is not relevant to you. 

    It's not like he's denying the clear and consistent OUM teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil, and then turning around and pointing fingers at others for not believing OUM teaching. That would be a contradiction.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #286 on: July 13, 2022, 10:33:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 08:37:59 AM

    Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  The question is what does the OUM really teach on BOD, but it seems like that point is not relevant to you. 

    Vermont,

    Well, yes, we disagree, but the OUM teaching on BOD is relevant to me.

    Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no ambiguity about what the OUM does teach about BOD: a man can be justified in votum as well as in re, without receipt of the sacrament. The Church teaches the possibility of saving grace by votum. That's the concept that all variations of BOD agree to. Fenton says it's a "revealed teaching." That core concept is universally taught in the Catechisms. Lad rejects that.

    Differences in formulation or application beyond the core concept can be disputed over, argued about, but the core concept can't be.

    I'll try to think of a better example, but if all catechisms throughout the world taught that angels were pure spiritual beings, but some had some language that others didn't about angels, the core concept of angels being spiritual beings would be a teaching of the Church that couldn't be rejected on the basis of differences about other aspects of angels.

    The point of difference is relevant to me: I'm not saying one must accept a certain version of BOD, but that one must accept the teaching of the possibility of justification and salvation by the grace of God through a votum without receipt of the sacrament.

    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

    https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf

    If one dies in a state of justification, one will be saved. And the "core concept" is that it is possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.


    But it seems to me the point of a shared teaching or concept that is universally taught throughout the Church - and must be accepted therefore - doesn't appear relevant to you if there are some differences beyond the "core concept," which, again, if you show me any pope, bishop, theologian (beyond Father Feeney) who denies that core concept - please do so. And even if you were able to find a lone wolf here or there, there is clearly, easily a moral unanimity of prelates and theologians on the core concept.

    Yes, we disagree.

    DR
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47700
    • Reputation: +28210/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #287 on: July 13, 2022, 11:30:31 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 10:33:30 AM

    Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no ambiguity about what the OUM does teach about BOD: 

    Nonsense.  Your gratuitous statement is rejected.  Show me where the Magisterium defines what must be believed about this "Baptism of Desire".

    Of course, the OUM teaches you Vatican II and that the NOM is a Catholic Mass, but you don't really care about that.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1078
    • Reputation: +824/-158
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #288 on: July 13, 2022, 12:21:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 10:33:30 AM

    If one dies in a state of justification, one will be saved. And the "core concept" is that it is possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.
    While one might be justified in this life through a votum, he will not die in that state without the laver of water baptism.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47700
    • Reputation: +28210/-5287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #289 on: July 13, 2022, 12:36:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 10:33:30 AM

    If one dies in a state of justification, one will be saved. And the "core concept" is that it is possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.

    But it seems to me the point of a shared teaching or concept that is universally taught throughout the Church ...

    You keep saying that and yet you have yet to make a citation from the Magisterium to back this up.  For the past 60 years, the "core concepts" if Vatican II have been taught by the V2 papal claimants and "universally throughout the Church" ... but you reject those.  For about 700 years, no theologian dissented from St. Augustine's opinion that infants who die unbaptized suffer in Hell, an opinion that was later corrected by the Church.  Yes, it's by far the most prevalent opinion that this "BoD" can suffice for salvation, but that doesn't make it a teaching of the Magisterium.

    This debate started over your assertion that the Magisterium can become corrupt, and now you're arguing from [well, you claim to be arguing from] the Magisterium to make the case for BoD.

    So, explain again, why it is that you reject the "point(s) of a shared teaching or concept(s) taught throughout the Church" for the past 60+ years regarding Vatican II and the New Mass?
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #290 on: July 13, 2022, 01:10:30 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 13, 2022, 11:30:31 AM

    Nonsense.  Your gratuitous statement is rejected.  Show me where the Magisterium defines what must be believed about this "Baptism of Desire".

    Of course, the OUM teaches you Vatican II and that the NOM is a Catholic Mass, but you don't really care about that.

    You really, really can't make distinctions. You waltz about in a field of strawmen.

    I reject certain teachings of Vatican II and the NOM for the same reason Stubborn does. As I demonstrated with Stubborn, he's not inconsistent, and neither am I.

    Shoot, I don't even hold against you your position on BOD. I accept our disagreement on that, and you as a fellow Catholic.

    Unfortunately, I'll have to bring this up again for about the 50th time since you're so obtuse: the reason I brought up BOD against you is because you rely on a teaching and interpretation of indefectibility that entails following in lock stop anything the hierarchy or Magisterium teaches with a spatial universality (sharing the Sede view) to judge Stubborn, Sean, me as heretics when that view of indefectibility - whatever the pope and the bishops in union with him currently hold,  regardless of whether the teaching is traditional and "always" held - would also require you to accept BOD and the possibility of justification and salvation without the sacrament of baptism.

    All of your "brothers" on indefectibility, applying the same standard - Daly, Lane, etc. - would find you inconsistent and a hypocrite with your stance on BOD. Your position on BOD was called by Servus the "Feenyite trump card"  that ruins you. It's a spot or dent in your position that renders you unworthy of credence and - that word you love to throw around - a hypocrite.

    The reason I brought up BOD to you in the context of your argument on indefectibility and use of it against Stubborn is well captured in this well known verse:



    Quote
    Matthew 7:5

    Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


    That's the reason for my reference to BOD. I don't follow your spatial universality of the Magisterium, nor indefectiblity, view. I'm a "heretic," remember? So I can reject the "OUM" and be consistent.

    Go ahead, fail to get the point again. Perhaps I'll come back and make the argument for the 51st time, but it's becoming tedious.


    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #291 on: July 13, 2022, 01:28:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 12, 2022, 08:06:19 AM

    Maybe you can get it through to his thick skull.

    As I said in this thread, there are Sedes who have taken his position regarding indefectibility, who are consistent, and have made a viable case regarding Sedevacantism. For example, in terms of those whose opinion I respect and who are worthy of much consideration, John Daly, John Lane, Bishop Sanborn, Father Cekada . . . those are the ones that jump out to me at the moment.

    His position is totally inconsistent, and one cannot regard him seriously. He hurts the Sede position with his contradictions.
    Yes, I'm still very new to this but John Daly is amazing, did you read his Theological status of Heliocentricity? Excellent study! Cekada of course is great, the best I've read from him is Absolutely Null and Utterly Void.

    Speaking of Daly, do you know where I can find his Catechism on the choice of state of life? It was mentioned in his marvelous talk on sedevacantism (Very much recommended: read here, or listen here) and I can't seem to find it.

    Yes, it hurts the position but it hurts him much more.

    Ladislaus, I started listening to the TradCast podcast recently and found episode 4 to be the most convincing explanation of Church doctrine on salvation I've heard so far. If you haven't heard it already I'd like to recommend it.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #292 on: July 13, 2022, 01:29:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 10:33:30 AM

    Vermont,

    Well, yes, we disagree, but the OUM teaching on BOD is relevant to me.

    Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no ambiguity about what the OUM does teach about BOD: a man can be justified in votum as well as in re, without receipt of the sacrament. The Church teaches the possibility of saving grace by votum. That's the concept that all variations of BOD agree to. Fenton says it's a "revealed teaching." That core concept is universally taught in the Catechisms. Lad rejects that.
    Nope.  The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this.  In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven.  Limbo, but not Heaven.  If BOD is teaching of OUM, then why don't these people got to Heaven?
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #293 on: July 13, 2022, 01:34:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
    Nope.  The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this.  In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven.  Limbo, but not Heaven.

    Sorry, but what catechism doesn't teach it?

    That passage from the BC doesn't address it. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #294 on: July 13, 2022, 01:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on July 13, 2022, 01:34:17 PM
    Sorry, but what catechism doesn't teach it?

    That passage from the BC doesn't address it.
    It doesn't?  Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven.  How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?

    This is my issue.  BOD is NOT consistently taught.  There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.


    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
    Logged

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #295 on: July 13, 2022, 01:49:24 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
    Nope.  The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this.  In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven.  Limbo, but not Heaven.  If BOD is teaching of OUM, then why don't these people got to Heaven?
    Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.

    I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #296 on: July 13, 2022, 01:52:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 01:46:28 PM

    It doesn't?  Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven.  How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?

    This is my issue.  BOD is NOT consistently taught.  There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.


    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

    All Catholics believe in original sin. That cannot be removed without the application of the merits of the Blood of Christ(Trent), which requires the sacrament of baptism or, as Pius XII put it, an act of love (a variant phrase for a BOD) - justification by Christ's Blood, in any event.

    There are adults, mentally deficient, who cannot make an "act of love," like a baby. If they die without the sacrament, they don't go to heaven, still having the stain of original sin.

    But since they didn't commit "actual sin," they go to some place like Limbo (per the BC).
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #297 on: July 13, 2022, 01:53:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on July 13, 2022, 01:49:24 PM
    Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.

    I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:

    Right. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2336
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #298 on: July 13, 2022, 01:56:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 13, 2022, 01:46:28 PM



    This is my issue.  BOD is NOT consistently taught.  There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.



    Vermont,

    Again, BOD is consistently taught in the respect of a possibility of justification and salvation by votum, without the sacrament. Some call it BOD; as I noted, Pius XII called it an "act of love."

    Show me a catechism that doesn't recognize that "core concept."
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Impressive Silence: The SSPX Bishops
    « Reply #299 on: July 13, 2022, 01:58:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on July 13, 2022, 01:49:24 PM
    Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.

    I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:
    Except it's not just talking about infants.  

    So an adult who has both original sin AND actual sins on his/her soul who merely implicitly desires baptism gets to go to Heaven, but another adult who has NO actual sins only gets to go to Limbo.

    Is that what you're saying?
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22
    « previous next »