Did the Holocaust Jews go to hell?
#81
Huh? Its not something we must believe but we must assent to it?
Reply
#82
Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
Reply
#83
(05-15-2009, 12:14 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-11-2009, 09:05 AM)HMiS Wrote: Jews are no other persons than the rest of the world. And baptism of desire is de fide. The Catechism of St. Pius X (1910) explicitly allows even implicit baptism of desire, as well as addresses of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).

I wouldn't say that baptism of desire is a truth that must be believed with the divine and Catholic faith, but rather that is is a teaching of the Church to which we must give our religious assent.
[url=http://[Image: 1238512678_thread_wrecker.gif]][Image: 1238512678_thread_wrecker.gif][/url]
Reply
#84
(05-15-2009, 12:14 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-11-2009, 09:05 AM)HMiS Wrote: Jews are no other persons than the rest of the world. And baptism of desire is de fide. The Catechism of St. Pius X (1910) explicitly allows even implicit baptism of desire, as well as addresses of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).

I wouldn't say that baptism of desire is a truth that must be believed with the divine and Catholic faith, but rather that is is a teaching of the Church to which we must give our religious assent.

Actually, having looked at the issue again, it would seem to me that Baptism of Desire actually is an infallible teaching, but that is is a sententia defenitive tenenda (a truth of the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei) rather than a truth that must be believed with the divine and Catholic faith.
Reply
#85
How could you say that? Everyone has a different definition. Theologians who profess it all put it in different categories. Some saying its dogma, others saying it should be held, others saying it should be assented to. The Church has never defined it. Many theologians have speculated on it and even professed it. Some catechisms have explicitly taught it, and others may have implied it. Some Fathers of the Church have affirmed it, others denied or contradicted it. Actions and miracles of the saints have gone against it. Those that don't believe it are recognized as orthodox Catholics by the Church. I think it really is up for grabs.
Reply
#86
(05-17-2009, 12:45 AM)didishroom Wrote: How could you say that? Everyone has a different definition. Theologians who profess it all put it in different categories. Some saying its dogma, others saying it should be held, others saying it should be assented to. The Church has never defined it. Many theologians have speculated on it and even professed it. Some catechisms have explicitly taught it, and others may have implied it. Some Fathers of the Church have affirmed it, others denied or contradicted it. Actions and miracles of the saints have gone against it. Those that don't believe it are recognized as orthodox Catholics by the Church. I think it really is up for grabs.

Every category that the theologians have put this doctrine in makes it a mortal sin to contradict.  BOD is not a mere theological opinion.   
Reply
#87
1.) I have never heard of theologians saying it was a mortal sin to deny it.
2.) And you get dogmatic definitions from theologians? No wonder your argument is so flawed.
Reply
#88
seee...thread now toast
Reply
#89
It's how they usually go, unfortuantely.  It's a very interesting and very important topic, but I think emotions get too much in the way.
Reply
#90
(05-17-2009, 01:14 AM)didishroom Wrote: 1.) I have never heard of theologians saying it was a mortal sin to deny it.
2.) And you get dogmatic definitions from theologians? No wonder your argument is so flawed.

(05-17-2009, 01:14 AM)didishroom Wrote: 1.) I have never heard of theologians saying it was a mortal sin to deny it.
2.) And you get dogmatic definitions from theologians? No wonder your argument is so flawed.

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X decreed the following in regards to whether submission to the responses of the Biblical Commission of the Holy Office was required:

"Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously."

If we "are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to" decisions of the Holy Office that have merely been approved by the Pope and "cannot . . . be free of grave sin" if we impugn them, how much more must we submit under pain of sin to the teachings of a Catechism promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff himself (cf. Laetamur Magnopere)?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)