FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: PBS on the Radical Nuns. (/showthread.php?tid=54857)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - James02 - 05-07-2012

Well, I skimmed the Fr. Harrison letter.  He agrees:
Quote: Is salvation possible for those who die not just as non-Catholics, but as non-Christians? That is, can someone reach eternal life who dies without any explicit belief in Jesus Christ as God and Savior?  While these modern magisterial documents stop short of answering this question clearly, it cannot be denied that what they say, in conjunction with what they significantly fail to say, leans in the direction of an affirmative answer. However, after much study and reflection, I myself have come to think – in accord with the teaching of St. Thomas – that the correct answer to this question must be negative. And Leonard Feeney of course agreed with the Angelic Doctor on that point.

So as I stated, and your article states, the Catechism leaves out the hippo in the bathtub.  That those who do not have Faith in Jesus Christ are damned.  As Fr. Harrison says, these modern fallible writings lean towards the Pelagian heresy.  BUT, they stop short.

So we have come full circle. 
Quote: I think it is more scandalous that this rag CAN be used as evidence that dogmatic teaching has changed.  The converse is also true.  Hence the need to rid ourselves of this ambiguous rag.



Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Ray M Facere - 05-07-2012

Quote:As Fr. Harrison says, these modern fallible writings lean towards the Pelagian heresy.  BUT, they stop short.

You previous comment was that the modern teachings WERE heretical. Now, I believe we are in agreement -- that they aren't particular good (being without nuance), but they aren't heretical, because they stop short. I think I have a more nuanced position than you when it comes to the theological status of the documents of Vatican II. "Not binding, non-dogmatic" doesn't presupposed it "may contain error," for instance, but we can leave that for another time or go in that direction if you wish.

Back to the point at hand, we might all agree that faith is a prerequisite to salvation and an absolute one. But of course, that doesn't touch baptism by desire (for those with faith) nor determining with certainty the status of non-baptised Catholics based on the external forum, as Father points out.

I notice you didn't address my third point, which is that implicitum votum ecclesiae was being taught widely by theologians prior to the council (and thus already considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium). This greatly impacts the question of the status of baptised non-Catholics, since that's what Fr. Harrison spends the bulk of his essay arguing about.

I really would encourage you to read the whole thing.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - James02 - 05-10-2012

Quote: But of course, that doesn't touch baptism by desire
Why do people always try to drag this in?  The hippo in the bath tub are the 6  Billion souls who in no way have Faith in Jesus Christ.  These people will go to hell.  The failure to teach this is what leads to the crisis, such as Caritas in Veritate.  This is the ambiguity which I condemned.  As I said, we have come full circle.  The ambiguity allowed this heretic to claim the Church has changed its teaching.  That was my point, now proven by your citation of Fr. Harrison.

Quote: "Not binding, non-dogmatic" doesn't presupposed it "may contain error,"
Why did you leave out "not infallible"?  If you have to resort to such games, you need to take a hard look in the mirror.
Quote: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.



Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Ray M Facere - 05-10-2012

Quote:[I]t avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility

Which is to say it was not an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Yet we know Extraordinary Magisterial teachings are not the only thing preserved from error.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - James02 - 05-10-2012

And we come full circle again.  If Vat. II did not exercise infallibility, what was the point?  And why is it allowed to continue?  It is an ambiguous rag that allows heretics to claim all sorts of heresies.  That is my claim.

Get rid of it.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Ray M Facere - 05-10-2012

I didn't concede it didn't exercise infallibility, just not via the extraordinary means.

EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM
(1) Typical Form -- Council with Ratification by the Pope
(2) Atypical Form -- Pope Alone Binding Whole Church

ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM
(1) Typical Form -- Pope's Teaching Echoed by World's Bishops
(2) Atypical Form -- World's Bishops Teaching in Pastoral Council Ratified/Echoed by the Pope

Vatican II is a historical reality. We can't just get rid of it. The best approach is to suggest it changed nothing other than an administrative direction for the Church which was flawed and allowed heresies to creep in. This wasn't the fault of the documents themselves, but rather the "euphoria" surrounding what some people thought the documents said in terms of a radically new direction for the Church.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Vetus Ordo - 05-10-2012

(05-10-2012, 04:46 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: The best approach is to suggest it changed nothing other than an administrative direction for the Church which was flawed and allowed heresies to creep in. This wasn't the fault of the documents themselves, but rather the "euphoria" surrounding what some people thought the documents said in terms of a radically new direction for the Church.

It's the "best approach" in order to save face but it utterly fails.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Ray M Facere - 05-10-2012

Quote:It's the "best approach" in order to save face but it utterly fails.

:shrug: If you say so. Based on reading your other posts indicating you are close to defecting from the Faith, I don't expect you to provide the most objective perspective, though.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Vetus Ordo - 05-10-2012

(05-10-2012, 05:01 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:It's the "best approach" in order to save face but it utterly fails.

:shrug: If you say so. Based on reading your other posts indicating you are close to defecting from the Faith, I don't expect you to provide the most objective perspective, though.

Of course not.

But what's "the Faith" anyway? It's certainly not the same today as it was prior to 1962. Rome has screwed up big time on that one, not me.


Re: PBS on the Radical Nuns. - Ray M Facere - 05-10-2012

Quote:But what's "the Faith" anyway? It's certainly not the same today as it was prior to 1962. Rome has screwed up big time on that one, not me.

I'm sure Our Lord didn't "seem" like the Messiah when he was in the tomb either. Yet there He was. At least one person held the Faith and knew her Son could not break His divine Word.