SSPX Statement
#51
:popcorn:

Someone like me sure can learn quite a bit listening in on conversations like this...thanks.

Question: What's this thing Rorate is in a snit over...another leak or something?
Reply
#52
Yes, a leak of matters discussed at the recent general chapter.
Reply
#53
At this point, it would be news if SSPX documents weren't leaked.
Reply
#54
(07-21-2012, 12:51 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: I didn't realize that you only hold contradictions against post-conciliar theologians, but it's just fine to get all vague and "the Church says..." when confronted with contradictions that you do like from theologians of the past. 

There are no contradictions amongst the theologians of the past concerning this subject.

Contradictions "amongst"?? Nice of you to assert that subtle qualifier, very deceptive of you. On the Bishop Muller thread you didn't make that kind of nuance.  You quoted magisterial texts among others to show the contradictions. 

But to put you back in your place and keep you honest, are you claiming that Cantate Domino affirms Aquinas' writings on Baptism of Blood? 

Since I doubt you'll give a straight answer, I'll provide the quotes for other people that might read this.

First the relevant point of Aquinas' take on Baptism of Blood,

"Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him."

From the infallible declaration Cantate Domino: 

"It [the Catholic Church]  firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."



Quote:
(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: Tell me, are the doctors of the Church infallible on all matters?  Please cite that one for me.  I'm sure you have your copy of Denzinger and Ott handy.  But...is Ott infallible? Hmm....
Are you infallible?
OK, so that straw man is out of the way.

Calling something a strawmen doesn't make it so.  It would be best if you leave it to people that aren't wildly throwing it around.  And refusing to answer a question by raising another is not dealing with it.  In answer to your question: No.  So now answer mine. 

Quote: A declaration that a man is a Doctor of the Church tells us that he was RIGHT, not incapable of error.  Infallibility results in being right always.  Being right is not limited to those who have infallibility.

I know that and I'm not infallible, and I happen to be right.  And you're not infallible either and you wrong.  And Doctors of the Church are not always right nor are they infallible. And your claim that they are always right is wrong.

A declaration making someone a Doctor of the Church does not guarantee their works are free from error.  Being right isn't included much less limited to being a Doctor of the Church.

(07-20-2012, 11:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: What public revelation has been given to the Church that contradicts Christ's institution of water Baptism and also overturns Auctorum Fidei?  Why did St. Thomas even bother to bring up the concept that God would send an Angel to instruct a man if necessary?

The public revelation concerning baptism is perfectly clear.  Only somebody who doesn't understand it would demand a new public revelation to explain it.[/quote]

No. Wrong again.  When an error creeps into an understanding and it becomes widespread enough, a magisterial solution is necessary.

And to provide the answer to my question.  St. Thomas was saying that untenable conclusions must have answers to them. (see below)

Quote: As for St. Thomas, why did he not suggest an angel or a preacher to baptise the man raised by wolves?  Because he didn't.

He suggested an angel or a preacher to INSTRUCT him, because faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exception, whereas baptism with water isn't. [/quote]


You're wrong yet again! You are either colossaly ignorant or you are trying to be deceptive.  More likely Aquinas didn't think the level of silliness would drop that far and his speculations and reasonings about Baptism would be mistaken as dogma in contradiction to the dogma of the Church which was clarified after his death.

St. Thomas says:

"Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)."

And of course, when we look at Acts 10 and read about St. Peter and Cornelius what is the final triumphant passage? 

"Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."

Quote: Start from the beginning.  Where did you learn your faith? 

I learned the faith from the Catholic Church.  I'm a Catholic.  You are either Protestant or a Catholic in name only that thinks like a Protestant.  You essentially believe in Salvation by Faith Alone with sacramental baptism as an option.  That is condemned by Trent. 

You also falsely attribute inerrancy to the Doctors of the Church. Did you know, no matter how brilliant a man is, if he's martyred, he cannot be proclaimed a Doctor? Kind of odd don't you think? 

I heard some people make reference to you being a sede on the Muller thread.  I didn't pay it much attention since I don't care that much about sedevacantism. 

But it's apparant you've got the same Novus Ordo conservative mindset.  The Protestant caricature of the infallibility of the Pope or the indefectibility of the Church is exaggerated beyond all reason.  The converts from Protestantism take this cartoon with them generally into the Novus Ordo.  The only difference between them and the Prots is they like the distortion and believe it.  The more discerning of them catch ahold of the obvious crisis and contradictions and then go sede.  The same exaggeration just with two different courses.  One goes with a fantasy about today, the other a fantasy about yesterday. 



Where did you learn your faith?  The Book of Concord and Charismatic service? 

Oh! Before I forget, one more interesting quote from Aquinas showing how open he was to multiple possibilities: 

"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.

Reply
#55
Just to clarify an important and popular misinterpretation regarding Cantate Domino:

When Cantate Domino is referring to those who cannot achieve salvation even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ, it is referring specifically to "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics." Since they willfully remain outside of Catholic unity by a sin against charity (i.e. schism) or a sin against faith (i.e. pagans, Jews, heretics), there could be no such thing as baptism of desire, since the very notion of baptism desire requires supernatural faith animated by perfect charity. Obviously, those who willfully remain outside of the Church are excluded from salvation even "if they shed their blood in the name of Christ"; but both baptisms of desire and of blood concern those who do not willfully remain outside of the Church but who, animated by perfect charity built upon supernatural faith in the mysteries necessary for salvation, sincerely desire to belong to it and do all that God asks, which includes membership in the Catholic Church and excludes the possibility of being guilty of schism, heresy, or infidelity.
Reply
#56
(07-22-2012, 02:59 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Just to clarify an important and popular misinterpretation regarding Cantate Domino:

When Cantate Domino is referring to those who cannot achieve salvation even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ, it is referring specifically to "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics." Since they willfully remain outside of Catholic unity by a sin against charity (i.e. schism) or a sin against faith (i.e. pagans, Jews, heretics), there could be no such thing as baptism of desire, since the very notion of baptism desire requires supernatural faith animated by perfect charity. Obviously, those who willfully remain outside of the Church are excluded from salvation even "if they shed their blood in the name of Christ"; but both baptisms of desire and of blood concern those who do not willfully remain outside of the Church but who, animated by perfect charity built upon supernatural faith in the mysteries necessary for salvation, sincerely desire to belong to it and do all that God asks, which includes membership in the Catholic Church and excludes the possibility of being guilty of schism, heresy, or infidelity.

This, as I have state previously in one of those several heated debates on BOD years ago.  The qualifier is not so much in the forewarning and admonition as in the countermand " ...[i]unless [/i]before the end of life the same have been added to the flock ..."  and with full and true repentance seeks to be admitted to the membership of Catholic Church, the caveat and condemnation no longer applies to him, even though this repentance is done in an infinitesimal frame of time before the end takes over.
Reply
#57
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

No, it isn't.

"Nevertheless it must be admitted that the human element modifies the perfection of Tradition.  There may be a break in its continuity and universality.  A temporary and partial eclipse of truth is possible, as are also further developments.  It is possible that for a time a portion of the Deposit may not be known and acknowledged by the whole Church or expressly and distinctly attested by the leading organs of the Apostolate.  We may therefore assert that the essential integrity, continuity, and universality of Oral Tradition, as required by the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church and as modified by the imperfections of the human clement, are subject to the following laws" (Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, ch. IV, sec. 22, II).

http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

I'm positively shocked that the Catholic Church would proclaim as saints and Doctors men who would manifestly deny any of her dogmas, as SS. Robert and Alphonsus denied -- apparently -- the utter necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation:

"Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'" (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).

"Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire) , and in that way they can be saved" (St. Robert Bellarmine, Ecclesia militante, chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76).

Yes, I'm a fool!  :P
Reply
#58
(07-22-2012, 02:59 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Just to clarify an important and popular misinterpretation regarding Cantate Domino:

When Cantate Domino is referring to those who cannot achieve salvation even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ, it is referring specifically to "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics." Since they willfully remain outside of Catholic unity by a sin against charity (i.e. schism) or a sin against faith (i.e. pagans, Jews, heretics), there could be no such thing as baptism of desire, since the very notion of baptism desire requires supernatural faith animated by perfect charity. Obviously, those who willfully remain outside of the Church are excluded from salvation even "if they shed their blood in the name of Christ"; but both baptisms of desire and of blood concern those who do not willfully remain outside of the Church but who, animated by perfect charity built upon supernatural faith in the mysteries necessary for salvation, sincerely desire to belong to it and do all that God asks, which includes membership in the Catholic Church and excludes the possibility of being guilty of schism, heresy, or infidelity.

This is where we run into the need for a magisterial declaration.  As Aquinas admits, BOD and BOB are not sacraments.  Only the sacraments are salvific.  Perfect charity may in the final moment lead to a tenuous state of justification, but the Baptismal mark still needs to be given in order to benefit sacramentally  to salvation. The BOD and BOB proponents insist that God simply backtracks on his revelation and makes exceptions which are tantamount to salvation by faith alone. The other position is that God supplies everything that is necessary and BOD and BOB may be triggers for a process that includes water Baptism.
Reply
#59
(07-22-2012, 11:24 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

No, it isn't.

"Nevertheless it must be admitted that the human element modifies the perfection of Tradition.  There may be a break in its continuity and universality.  A temporary and partial eclipse of truth is possible, as are also further developments.  It is possible that for a time a portion of the Deposit may not be known and acknowledged by the whole Church or expressly and distinctly attested by the leading organs of the Apostolate.  We may therefore assert that the essential integrity, continuity, and universality of Oral Tradition, as required by the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church and as modified by the imperfections of the human clement, are subject to the following laws" (Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. I, ch. IV, sec. 22, II).

http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Yes, the NO was promulgated and continues to be taught by the magisterium. The above quote does not change that fact.
Reply
#60
Quote:Yes, the NO was promulgated and continues to be taught by the magisterium. The above quote does not change that fact.

By the conciliar magisterium.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)