Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 204804 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #240 on:** March 27, 2018, 07:37:18 AM »

Quote

when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful"

Cantarella,
Your definition above of the ordinary magisterium is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying and it lines up EXACTLY with the requirements of Vatican I, when it defined infallibility. It fulfills the 4 requirements of Vatican 1, therefore it is 1) Official Teaching and 2) is Infallible and protected from error.

V2 did not propose ANY teaching as being 1) a “divinely revealed” topic of 2) “faith and morals” that 3) “must be held” under pain of sin by 4) “all the faithful” of the Church, everywhere and for all time.

Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”. What does this mean? It’s another term for Tradition. It means the Church is telling us that teaching x is “part of Tradition”, that it can be traced back to the Apostles because Christ HAS ALREADY revealed it to them.

Notice that Vatican I does not say that the pope “divinely REVEALS” (present tense). No! All truth has already been revealed to the Apostles by Christ.

The Pope’s job is to re-teach or clarify WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REVEALED. Infallibility does not reveal something NEW (that’s not possible!) but only connect some point of the Faith back to Tradition which is 1) under attack or 2) which is currently misunderstood.

Go re-read the Papal Bull of the Assumption. The Pope makes it very clear that this is not new but is a part of the Faith going back to Apostolic times (because, of course, the Apostles were there when Our Lady Assumed into heaven).

Go re-read any council docuмent (apart from V2) and they explain or refer to Tradition and how their canons are Apostolic beliefs.

Go re-read Humanae Vitae (which theologians argue was an exercise of ORDINARY magisterium). The pope makes clear that the Church’s stance against birth control is 1) constant teaching 2) a matter of faith/morals, 3) part of the natural law (which is “divinely revealed” upon all men’s hearts). And 4) must be believed by all Catholics.

The point is, the TIME factor matters. Because the Church is TIMELESS. She teaches the same truths yesterday, today and tomorrow. What Christ taught the Apostles was the “full faith”. He gave them “all truth”. THERE IS NOTHING NEW FOR THE CHURCH TO TEACH.

So when the pope (either alone or in union with the bishops) exercises his teaching authority, on a matter of faith and morals, he is not REVEALING (present tense) a teaching but only confirming/reminding us of what HAS ALREADY BEEN revealed (past tense) by Christ to the Apostles. Therefore, the idea that the magisterium is the “rule of faith” is as erroneous as saying that a priest is the “author of the Holy Eucharist”. In both cases, the pope/priest is the intermediary between us and Christ. These intermediaries are ABSOLUTELY necessary to our faith and our religion, but the formal object of our faith is Christ and His teachings (ie articles of faith or dogma) not of the Apostles and their successors. For ALL DOGMA was revealed by Christ to the Apostles. There is nothing left for the Church to do but re-teach and clarify.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #241 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:07:20 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 27, 2018, 07:37:18 AM

Here’s what you guys are missing...the important factor of being “divinely revealed”.

Pax Vobis,

Yes. Very important qualification.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #242 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:11:46 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 26, 2018, 02:12:02 PM

Keep pressing him Jeremiah and he'll decide that your posts are not worth responding to at all. That's how it goes with some people who cannot answer clear questions with clear answers and instead, prefer to dance around your questions and dispute the indisputable lest they admit they've had it wrong all along. Keep him - and us all in your prayers please.

Stubborn,
Thank you. We need each others' prayers. Pray for me as well, please.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #243 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 27, 2018, 06:19:37 AM

It is not an old doctrine, it is officially a Novus Ordo doctrine, found only in the official docuмents of V2, specifically, it is found only in Lumen Gentium #25.

In fact, the part I bolded in #3 is by far the best definition of what the Ordinary Magisterium is that I have seen so far.

Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter

1) "We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe.

2) And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error, could be theirs if faith and obedience were only accorded to dogmas expressly defined by the Church.

3) Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. [the Ordinary Magisterium]

4) But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.

*******************
*******************

In this teaching above, we read in #1 that dogma rules, that all men must believe the defined dogmas of the Church, not some vague idea of a magisterium. In #2, we read that perfect adhesion to dogma ("revealed truths") is absolutely necessary in the refutation of error. This agrees with dogma being the rule of faith.

We learn in #3 that we cannot limit our beliefs to defined dogma, that we must also believe (faithfully submit to) "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" (the Ordinary Magisterium).

In and of itself, #3 and #4 kills the "totality of bishops doctrine" with the words "all that has been handed down". They then bury it 6 feet under with the words "with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" since here, the word "universal" simply means "always and every where". The term "constant consent" means that all of the Church's authorities and learned have accepted and taught as a part if the faith since the time of the Apostles.

Because he includes the attribute of time, he immediately eliminates the "totality of bishops doctrine", which by it's very nature excludes the attribute of time.

Stubborn,

Yes. Both Vatican I and Tuas Libenter add the qualification, pointed out by Pax Vobis, that the teaching must be one set forth as "divinely revealed." Since revelation was complete with the apostles, that necessarily includes some time element.

Stubborn · « **Reply #244 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:41:51 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on March 27, 2018, 08:20:23 AM

Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

From MHFM

Lumen Gentium of Vatican II

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world.... they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #245 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:52:23 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on March 27, 2018, 08:20:23 AM

Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…(# 9): The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians…(# 12): The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

From MHFM

Interesting.

I believe this is the relevant Latin text:

Quote

Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html

Seems a rather odd way of "declaring" something to be revealed, saying a principle "accords" with the revelation of God. Various civil rights may "accord" with the revelation of God without being part of it. An "accord" in English is an agreement between two separate parties or distinct things. The Latin should be looked at.

Definitely a point worth discussion.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #246 on:** March 27, 2018, 10:44:12 AM »

For the record, my arguments have nothing to do with R&R. Some of you want to label them as such, so you can disregard, but that’s lazy. Keep an open mind, and be open to the truth on this specific point. Life’s not all about R&R vs Sede.

Stubborn · « **Reply #247 on:** March 27, 2018, 11:55:47 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on March 27, 2018, 10:31:20 AM

Yes, we are; but only if Pope Paul VI was a true Pope; because only the papal approbation is what makes the decrees of an Ecunemical Council binding. You are going out of the way, but it is quite unnecessary. Simply, do a dispassionate research on the infallibility of Ecunemical Councils. I recommend you start by reading the dogmatic Profession of Faith imposed by Pope Saint Horsmidas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius.

R&R is trying way too hard. I know because I have been there, but we do not have to.

You cannot get out of it like that - at least not honestly. By doubting the legitimacy of pope Paul VI, and on that account rejecting your own rule of faith, clearly demonstrates that you have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith. Can't you see that?

Even using your own misunderstanding of TL #3, he clearly says that we owe our submission to the magisterium. To you, this now means that you owe your submission to the NO teachings of the totality of bishops - does it not? This is your rule of faith, this is what you say you believe the true pope, Pius IX, taught - no? What gives you the right to reject this teaching? Do you think Pius IX was a false pope too?

You seem to agree with Lad that we cannot know right from wrong, or truth from heresy, or old from new without the (your) rule of faith, the magisterium. So by what authority do you ignore the magisterium, i.e. your rule of faith? What kind of a rule of faith is it that allows or encourages you to simply ignore it whenever you want to?

For me, I don't need to read the dogmatic, Profession of Faith because I understand and embrace what the Church has always taught, which TL worded so clearly - TL #3 teaches me that after dogma, I owe my submission to "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world", which is the Magisterium.

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #248 on:** March 27, 2018, 02:44:32 PM »

PPVI (January 12, 1966)

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each docuмent.

Dr. Ludwig Ott. He explains our duty towards the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as follows:

The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religious). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is “reverent silence”, does not generally suffice. By the way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conclusion that the decision rests on an error.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #249 on:** March 27, 2018, 03:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 27, 2018, 02:22:31 PM

Pastor Aeternus IV.2

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.

You're simply too much already. You have no faith whatsoever in your own rule of faith.

Quote

You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong.

No, Pastor Aeternus is without question absolutely right. The thought that it could be wrong never entered into our minds. After all, for us, Pastor Aeternus' teachings are the Rule of faith. It is with faith that we wholly embrace our rule of faith. It is YOU who have it wrong. Nothing complicated here Lad.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #250 on:** March 27, 2018, 04:37:50 PM »

Quote

This ^^^ is in direct contradiction to Vatican I...

No it's not.

Quote

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium is fallible unless it agrees with "what has always been taught" (i.e. Apostolic Tradition), then it's UNIVERSAL because it agrees with the ETERNAL truths taught by Christ..

If the ordinary magisterium attempts to teach something new, then it is anathema! There are no new catholic truths, don't you understand that? The articles of the Creed will never change, never be added to, never be deleted. CHRIST GAVE THE APOSTLES THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH. Full means COMPLETE.

drew · « **Reply #251 on:** March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 27, 2018, 02:05:01 PM

Your [false] accusation that I am a liar comes from the fact that you are simply incapable of understanding that words can be used in different ways.

Define Revelation. Revelation can be used for the revealed truths themselves, or for the PROCESS of Revelation, whereby God revealed Himself to us.

Indeed, the existence of the Magisterium is A revealed truth. I did not disagree with this. When I said that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I was referring to the process of Revelation.

This is precisely the distinction taught by Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus IV.6.
Whereas Revelation "makes known some new doctrine", Magisterium "religiously guards and faithfully expounds the revelation or deposit of faith". Popes do not REVEAL doctrine but, rather,

I can't help you are incapable of understanding the difference.

PS -- R&R distort the meaning of this passage to make it sound as if WHEN the Magisterium expounds "some new doctrine", then it can be rejected. But this passage is nothing more than a definition of the Magisterium, the Church's teaching authority, as distinct from Revelation.

And this is what I said in stating correctly that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation.

No, Drew, you the liar. You repeated the assertion that we consider the Pope to be the rule of faith even after I pointed out that it was not correct but was a dishonest strawman argument.

Amazing, you make the allegation of lying and produce no evidence other than your arguments (for what they are worth) have not convinced me? You think everyone reading these posts are fools? When I call you a liar, I produce a specific allegation. The charge is based upon evidence so that you can address the specific charge. Liars always have problems with their memory so let me refresh yours.

To "prove" your claim that the "magisterium is the rule of faith," you pasted the article from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that argued that the rule of faith must be "extrinsic" to the faith.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »

From this you argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to the faith, and that it is not part of divine revelation. We had several exchanges on this question to which you replied:

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

Quote

Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.

I'm not even going to bother with your last post. You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another. You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation. Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation. In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us. With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth. It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth. In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it. If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you. Then your post goes downhill from there.
Ladislaus

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #358 on: March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM »

After Cantarella posted a dogmatic teaching that the magisterium is from divine revelation, she was asked whether she believed the dogma or you.

The reply did not come from Cantarella but from you. And now we move on to your lying efforts to "prove" that you never argued that the magisterium is extrinsic to divine revelation.

Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #363 on: March 23, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on March 23, 2018, 06:32:15 PM

"Well, what is it going to be: the Magisterium is part of divine revelation or the Magisterium is not part of divine revelation. Who has everything wrong, you or Ladisalus?"

Quote

"Oh, come on now. Yes, the existence of the Magisterium was revealed. That's not what we're talking about.
"When I say that the Magisterium is not part of Revelation, I'm simply reiterating the teaching of Vatican I regarding the distinction between Revelation and Magisterium. Magisterium is not part of Revelation; it's a distinct thing. It's the Church explaining and defining Revelation. It's formally distinct."
Ladisalus

And the equivocations keeps on flowing. You are a liar.

But your claim that the magisterium is not part of divine revelation is just one of many stupid things that you have posted. You are a phony pretending a competency that you do not possess.

Several years ago you denied that supernatural faith was believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »

Then you demonstrated that you in fact did not know the definition of supernatural faith when you proposed driving a wedge between these two necessary attributes and thereby, dissolving the definition.
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »

Quote

"To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed."
Ladislaus

So in this thread we have you arguing the magisterium is the rule of faith when you clearly do not know what the faith is or what the magisterium is. No wonder you do not know what the rule of faith is!

But you plod on tracking dirt where ever you go. Sedeprivationism presupposes the dissolution of the form and matter of the papal office and you are so ignorant that you do not even know that this presupposition necessarily produces a substantial change destroying the office!

You possess some knowledge but without wisdom or understanding. The habit of the first principles is wholly lacking with you. And what makes everything so destructive, you have no moral sense and your too immature to take responsibility for what you post or the damage you may do.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #252 on:** March 27, 2018, 07:59:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 27, 2018, 02:17:58 PM

And then Drew claims that the indefectibility of the Magisterium has not been defined.

Let's keep reading in Pastor Aeternus. (IV.6-7)

Vatican I teaches that the Papal Magisterium was given by God so that the "whole flock of Christ might be kept away ... from the poisonous food of error" ... and yet R&R have the audacity to assert, in direct defiance of Vatican I, that the Papal Magisterium has in fact SUPPLIED this "poisonous food of error" to the "whole flock of Christ". How can you affirm, with your non-Catholic R&R position, that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error". Disgraceful! Get thee behind me, Satan. R&R claims that the Papal Magisterium has failed to realize its end of protecting the flock from error, i.e. that it has defected.

You guys have absolutely NO shame whatsoever. You need to read ALL of Pastor Aeternus; if you have any Catholic bones left in your body, then you should blush with shame for ever having embraced R&R. But then you can just claim that Pastor Aeternus got it wrong. After all, these passages are not infallible because they do not come in the form of a solemn definition. You can just discard any non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium at a whim, because you in your brilliant private judgment have deemed it incompatible with dogma.

Many of you are nothing but Protestant heretics and schismatics.

Ladislaus, you liar. If you are going to begin a post by affirming something I said, provide the quotation in the proper context.

Quote

Pastor aeternus is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. The docuмent defines four doctrines of the Catholic faith: 1) the apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) the perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) the meaning and power of papal primacy, and 4) Papal Infallibility - infallible teaching authority (magisterium) of the Pope. Wikipedia

Nothing here formally defining the doctrine of Indefectibility, as a matter of fact, the word, "indefectibility" or its cognates does not appear in the docuмent, but if someone did not know better, they just might think you knew what you are talking about.

The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of Infallibility and that theological opinions regarding this attribute will need to be rethought.

You really have a lot of nerve. You sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by fracturing its form and matter and then have gall to pretend that the Indefectibility of the Church is someone else's problem. You have no pope, you have no access to the magisterium of the Church (revealed by God), and you have no rule of faith.

You are adrift Ladislaus, treading water way over your head.

Drew

P. S. I forgot about your "infallible security" blanket. There should be directions somewhere on how to make it a flotation device.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #253 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:05:48 PM »

Quote

The only thing that I have affirmed is that the attribute of Indefectibility has not been dogmatically addressed as has the attribute of Infallibility

I agree with the idea that Indefectibility has not has not been adequately explained. If it had been, then we wouldn't have certain people arguing that indefectibility is a "backup plan" for the church's magisterium, which renders the pope as a living oracle, incapable of "substantial" error and making the power of infallibility pointless.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #254 on:** March 27, 2018, 08:29:24 PM »

Ladislaus,

Still looking for that theologian who agrees with you that the Roman Catechism did not teach BoD? Likely you've given that up.

Perhaps you're simply trying to figure out how a Magisterium which is "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," and which "could no means commit itself to erroneous teaching" could manage to publish a universal catechism for instruction of the faithful that teaches the erroneous teaching of BoD?

Yes . . . that would explain your reticence.

Or, to paraphrase Elias - perhaps your doctrine of indefectibility is sleeping, and needs to be awaken? (3 Kings 18:27)

**BUMP**

Quote

Reply #464

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:07:26 PM
Quote
Stop digressing. I don't believe that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not digressing, but bringing up a very relevant point that directly contradicts not only your position but your attacks on the positions of others, e.g., Stubborn and Drew.

What is under discussion is the view that the Magisterium is free from error. You have yet to offer a definition of that critical term, Magisterium. You quote popes who say that the Magisterium is "free from error" then you go off on Thomas substance/accidents and say:

Quote
Quote
No, what these Popes are teaching about is the Magisterium considered AS A WHOLE, the "forest" vs. the "trees" view of it that I've been talking about. It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.

Why don't you go back and look at your quotes from the popes. Here's some of the phrases they used: "unable to be mistaken," "without danger of error," "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching." That is far more than "cannot, on the whole, be subtantially corrupted." Nice try, though, with that Thomist stuff. Impressive.

And now you say that you "don't believe" that the Catechism of Trent taught BoD. Here's the language, using a quote from another poster, which is cited:

Quote
Quote
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]

Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cuм scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cuм ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.

[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]

Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.

Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.

Here's my translation:-

[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]

The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.

[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]

But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jєωs, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/sedevacantist-'-feeneyite-'-bishops/ (Reply 11)

Now, apart from asking you to look at the language itself, which appears to be well translated above, I also want you to consider the following comments you made to Drew and Stubborn in this thread:

Quote
Quote
"but please stop promoting this false and heretical notion that dogma is the proximate rule of faith ... against the teaching of all Catholic theologians."

"EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.

I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him)."

I have one for you: NAME A SINGLE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN WHO READS THE ABOVE CITED PASSAGE OF THE CATECHISM AS NOT SUPPORTING BOD. I'll let you answer and see what you come up, rather than listing the long roll call of theologians and saints who would not "believe" like you that the Catechism is "not teaching BoD."

You're simply, ah, selective in applying the accusation of not listening to the theologians when it suits you - namely, applying it to others and avoiding the application to yourself. In fact, unless I'm wrong about what I think you will (or rather won't) come up with,"every Catholic theologian" opposes you. Doesn't stop you on your "belief" regarding the Catechism, so why should "EVERY Catholic theologian" prevent Drew and Stubborn from offering their view, which is at least consistent and doesn't come at you with a beam sticking out of the eye.

The Magisterium that is "free from error" appears to be only "free from error" when it agrees with Ladislaus. When it doesn't, well, it commits some real whoppers.

Digression? Nah. It's a pin that goes straight into your balloon.