Another EENS, please be patient...
#21
(05-02-2011, 02:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 12:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.

Well, Rome has accepted several heresies for at least 50 years now.

But why?  Because they abandoned Catholic theology.  Catholic theology had been upheld in the period between 1570-1960.

Stubborn,
Before Vatican II, seminarians learned theology in Latin.  They very often used Latin copies of ecclesiastical documents.  Moreover, almost all of the Scholastic theology manuals were in Latin and so made use of Latin texts.

I don't understand your point.  How is being saved via BoD much different from being saved on one's deathbed by baptism, while a man who lives his life as a faithful Catholic but dies at the end in mortal sin?  If a mortal sinner can have perfect contrition and be justified before receiving Penance, then why not also with regard to the catechumen, as was explicitly taught by St. Pius V?
Reply
#22
(05-02-2011, 02:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 02:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 12:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.

Well, Rome has accepted several heresies for at least 50 years now.

But why?  Because they abandoned Catholic theology.  Catholic theology had been upheld in the period between 1570-1960.

Stubborn,
Before Vatican II, seminarians learned theology in Latin.  They very often used Latin copies of ecclesiastical documents.  Moreover, almost all of the Scholastic theology manuals were in Latin and so made use of Latin texts.

Agreed.

So how was it that hierarchy, clergy and lay folk believed that the NO mass was simply the TLM said in english for 40 years? How is it that many still believe that? How is it that "for all" was ever accepted as valid for +45 years?

IMO, it's called crooks in the Church and/or the others are either being duped or don't care enough to find out.
Reply
#23
I posted: So how was it that hierarchy, clergy and lay folk believed that the NO mass was simply the TLM said in english for 40 years? How is it that many still believe that? How is it that "for all" was ever accepted as valid for +45 years? ...........and I want to add another point for consideration or contemplation.

Since, as has been proven in our life times that such blatant errors such as posted above are not only possible, they are successful - could these errors have been so easily perpetrated without BOD?

What I mean is that via BOD, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is entirely reasonable to say that the most people, including Catholics, believe that most everyone is one way or another possibly / probably saved via BOD - from there it takes little effort to believe that the watered down EENS includes most of those who are outside of the Church - from there, it takes no effort at all to accept, even defend -  "for all".

I guess that could be yet another reason that BOD cannot be a part of the deposit of faith - by it's very nature it is self destructive.

What a mess. 
Reply
#24
(05-02-2011, 02:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I don't understand your point.  How is being saved via BoD much different from being saved on one's deathbed by baptism, while a man who lives his life as a faithful Catholic but dies at the end in mortal sin?  If a mortal sinner can have perfect contrition and be justified before receiving Penance, then why not also with regard to the catechumen, as was explicitly taught by St. Pius V?

The penitent had already received the water, the catechumen died before he got to the water. Assuming he was justified via his BOD aka perfect act of contrition, all we can say is what Our Lord said - namely, "he cannot enter the kingdom of God" without the water. We do not know where he went, but we know it was not heaven, because that is the kingdom of God, which, according to God, the catechumen cannot enter unless he was baptized.

We can say that with all certainty because we are simply repeating Our Lords words as He said them in Scripture. I think we all know that Scripture is infallible and in this case, it is easily understood.
Reply
#25
The basis for my interpretation is quite simple. All acts of the ordinary and universal magisterium must be congruent with and in submission to dogma. THerefore, they must be interpreted in a way that does not contradict the dogmatic FORM and literal meaning of the words, regardless of their historical context, since the historical context does not give the dogma its meaning, but it's weight is determined by the way in which the church pronounces it.

Dogmas are made up of words, providentially so; where one may err (In thinking an unregenerate person can have perfect charity, which is heretical, because perfect charity is impossible without sanctifying grace, which is given in baptism alone), one may see the correct meaning after all: THat which is in line with tradition.
Reply
#26
I do not follow; I would argue that Popes Pius XII and John XXIII were indirectly responsible for the NOM (for putting the wrong people in place and then approving of their suggested changes), while Bugnini and Co. were directly responsible for it (for making the changes).  I don't think BoD has anything to do with it.

The denial of EENS has to do with liberalism.  On the other hand, we should be careful to avoid Jansenism/the errors of Baius.

Stubborn,
Holy Mother Church has failed to properly interpret Scripture while her own theologians and Pontiffs cannot correctly interpret her decrees; I think it's apparent that she has defected.  I'm not exaggerating: if you're right, then how is it that the Church hasn't defected due to denying the Faith since 1566/70?  What's more, how hasn't Scholasticism obscured the Gospel?  Apparently it has, but now we fall under the condemnation of Pius VI (cf. Denz. 1501).  And, paradoxically, we call into question the Church's very own authority (cf. Denz. 1680).  See also Denz. 1579, about slandering the opinions discussed in Catholic schools (which would include BoD, assuming it's merely an opinion), done by the authority of the Church: "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."
Reply
#27
She has not defected, she has somply been crucified by modernism and liberalism whose roots can be traced to the protestant revolt.

The Church's faith does not rest in the interpretations of theologians, nor does it rest in the private teaching of popes; Ultimately the Holy Spirit protects the Infallibile statements of the church in the Ordinary and Extraordinary magisterium ALONE. THAT is our immediate and proximate source of faith; The Scriptures and Fathers are our remote sources of faith.

SO to my mind it is quite simple: The Church has not defected at all: As can be seen even in the documents of Vatican II, all of which can be interpreted in a traditional light, though mostly vague: However it is not traditional to BE vague in proclaiming truth.

You must admit that Ex Omnibus is capable of the Interpretatio I gave it, because that is what it says: You must remember the WHOLE of the proposition is condemned, not just parts of it. SO if it says "Catechumens cannot have perfect charity without remission of sins." -condemned. What is being said? THat a catechumen CAN have perfect charity and therefore his sins are remitted as a catechumen? This runs counter to the teaching that man can do no supernaturally pleasing work (Including having charity) without being regenerate.

But how can a man be regenerate without baptism? It is the only way og being born again.

THerefore the interpretation that a Catechumen cannot have perfect charity unless his sins are first remitted fits more in line with both the constant teaching of the church on original sin and the Augustinian doctors like anselm, etc.
Reply
#28
(05-02-2011, 03:59 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I do not follow; I would argue that Popes Pius XII and John XXIII were indirectly responsible for the NOM (for putting the wrong people in place and then approving of their suggested changes), while Bugnini and Co. were directly responsible for it (for making the changes).  I don't think BoD has anything to do with it.

The denial of EENS has to do with liberalism.  On the other hand, we should be careful to avoid Jansenism/the errors of Baius.

I'm speaking about s l o w l y introducing changes little by little. Starting maybe 10 generations ago they slip in BOD as tho it's a doctrine. Same time EENS gets watered down to an all but meaningless formula. Pope St. Pius X does what he can and sends the modernists scurrying "underground" - a generation or two after he's gone they start surfacing again. Enter Fr. Feeney - by then they already were strong enough to all but squash him and they continue on with their mission. Bugnini and CO were a part of the whole process, this mess did not happen overnight.


(05-02-2011, 03:59 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
Holy Mother Church has failed to properly interpret Scripture while her own theologians and Pontiffs cannot correctly interpret her decrees; I think it's apparent that she has defected.  I'm not exaggerating: if you're right, then how is it that the Church hasn't defected due to denying the Faith since 1566/70?

I disagree that Holy Mother the Church misinterpreted anything. She has defined via echoing  - not innovating. IMO, those who think that the Church has denied or misinterpreted anything of the faith by proclaiming BOD a doctrine are mistaken and best, heretical at worst. The is no doctrine on BOD, only it's contradiction has been defined infallibly.

Every Bull etc I've ever seen has agreed with each other ie water is necessary.

BOD seems to have come from some saints and doctors and perhaps some private dealings of popes, but personally I've yet to see any definitive declaration saying anything other than a perfect act of contrition can justify the catechumen. I've not even seen where the catechumen is absolutely justified via perfect contrition - only that he can be justified - this is because there is no way to be sure if his perfect act of love (contrition) was sufficient to God.

I've yet to see any definitive declaration from the Church saying that the unbaptized catechumen is granted salvation without water. Justification, yes, I've seen that - salvation, no.

Even God only says "he cannot enter the kingdom of God".
Trent says the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation under pain of anathema, that true and natural water is of necessity for baptism.

Where are you seeing the contradiction?

Reply
#29
Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are not replacements for Baptism. There is no point where a person can say: "I do not need to be baptised, I already am". Maybe that is the point of contention. People unbaptised do not have the grace, no matter their virtue, while living in this world. It is only a matter which applies at the end of life.

So, this doctrine, whether true or false, does not have any impact on how we live and teach the faith.

God reveals what is beneficial to us. It is not beneficial for us, for instance, to grasp exactly what is the minimum required by God to be saved (even if that question made sense). God tells us to constantly persevere and to enter the narrow gate. It is not a game or a legalistic struggle. It is the essentially unknowable nature of God which governs everything.
Reply
#30
Gregory I Wrote:The Church's faith does not rest in the interpretations of theologians, nor does it rest in the private teaching of popes; Ultimately the Holy Spirit protects the Infallibile statements of the church in the Ordinary and Extraordinary magisterium ALONE. THAT is our immediate and proximate source of faith; The Scriptures and Fathers are our remote sources of faith.

"When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church.  Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. ... The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: ... (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal" (Wilhelm and Scanell, vol. I, sec. 27, 29).

"When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;  If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine" (Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, p. 181?).

The common and constant teaching of theologians is a witness of Tradition and to which is owed our submission.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhel...index.html

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208clas.asp

The opinion that we are to limit our beliefs to only those doctrines which have been infallibly defined has been expressly condemned.  And again, about a dozen Doctors before Trent taught BoD; two saints who taught it after Trent were also named Doctors.  And what about the 1917 Code's teaching on catechumens?

Trent said, "without them or the desire for them" (Denz. 847).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)