EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
#61
OK, in the case of the three baptisms, I do think the answer is pretty clear cut.  If you look at the definition of Trent, it's pretty clear that the intent was not to define that ONLY water baptism, and therefore not baptism of desire or blood, would save.

I mean, were it otherwise, what would baptism of blood even mean?  It would be a cherry on top of the cake of salvation, the crown of martyrdom.

As much as I respect the man for standing up under VERY difficult circumstances, I don't see any way around saying that Fr. Feeney was wrong insofar as he insisted that BoD and BoB were not attested by the Church's traditional teaching.  As I understood it, he was always willing to accept that as well, if the Church clarified its teaching on this point.  What he really was fighting to avoid was any liberal interpretation of EENS.

Of course, my memory could be playing tricks on me again.
Reply
#62
JuniorCouncilor Wrote:In the case of the interpretation of implicit desire, in ecclesia in re or in voto, etc., I don't find it so simple.

It's a lot simpler when you put the various writings into their proper place.  Look at what's defined and put that on the highest level.  The rest can be compared with what's defined.  Whatever contradicts what's defined is questionable, and possibly erroneous, or heretical, depending on the circumstances.
(08-14-2012, 10:15 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: OK, in the case of the three baptisms, I do think the answer is pretty clear cut.  If you look at the definition of Trent, it's pretty clear that the intent was not to define that ONLY water baptism, and therefore not baptism of desire or blood, would save.

Would you mind showing me exactly where it says this?

Here's the MICM page on 'Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent':
Quote:Liberal theologians for a long time have been attempting to foist upon docile Catholics the idea that the theological expression baptism of desire is an unassailable doctrine approved by the highest Church authority and taught officially by the Solemn Magisterium. That this expression has been around for a long time nobody denies, but that it has been officially taught by the Church is simply not true.

The Council of Trent held in the mid 1500s dealt with the subject of desire and resolve to receive the sacraments, which implies of course desire for baptism, and the role this resolve and desire play in the justification and salvation of mankind. To help clear the air in terms of what the Council of Trent taught in this regard, it will suffice to show in what context desire and resolve to receive the sacraments exist as part of the infallible truths taught at the Council of Trent. The following five points with supporting documentation will put before the reader the proper understanding of the Church’s teaching on justification, salvation, and desire for the sacraments.

1. The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification.

Session 6, Chapter VI, Decree Concerning Justification (January 13, 1547):

Now, they are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism; finally, when they resolve (desire) to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

Session 6, Chapter VII, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself,…

Session 6, Chapter VIII, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…

Session 5, The Decree Concerning Original Sin (June 17, 1546):

…our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God,…

2. A person who has the Catholic Faith can attain the state of Justification if that person receives the Sacraments or has the resolve (desire) to receive them.

Session 6, Chapter IV, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Session 6, Chapter VII, Decree Concerning Justification:

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The causes of justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified,…

Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments (March 3, 1547):

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema. [Notice, faith and desire are necessary for justification, not only desire and not only faith.]

3. The reception of the Sacraments is required for Salvation.

Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

Session 7, Canons 2 & 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:

Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

[In terms of a syllogism, we have the infallible major premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation," the infallible minor premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," and the conclusion: "True and natural water is necessary for salvation." This conclusion is not itself infallible, because it is the product of reasoning external to the Council's. Still, it is a strong argument.]

4. In Conclusion, Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.

As the foregoing discussion from the Council of Trent points out, justification and salvation are two different things. Justification is the road to salvation, and not salvation itself. After all we are Catholics who believe in a dogmatic faith, good works, and sanctifying grace, not Protestants who believe in confidence alone!

5. Regarding baptism of desire:

◦No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
◦Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)

http://catholicism.org/desire-justificat...ation.html
Reply
#63
(08-14-2012, 10:33 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Would you mind showing me exactly where it says this?

Well, again, it's a matter of reading it in-- dare I say it?  I suppose I have no choice-- in context.  But sure, I'll take my best crack-- especially since you provided all the raw material I need.

Quote:Session 6, Chapter VII, Decree Concerning Justification:

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The causes of justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified,…

I'm working from memory here, but the issue turns, at least in part, on what the bolded "which" above refers back to.  If its antecedent is the nearest noun, faith, it doesn't offer any undue support to the MICM's position.  If it refers back to 'sacrament' or 'baptism', they have a stronger case.  And in fact, this is perfectly verifiable:  if we go back to the original Latin, I would expect sine qua if we refer back to faith, which is feminine, but sine quo if we refer back to 'sacrament' or 'baptism' which are both neuter.  I'm not going to look them up tonight, but as I say, one certainly could do so, and if you persevere in your requests, I might even do it myself.

Do you see the distinction I'm making?  If it's "faith, without which no man was ever justified," then there's no real help for those who deny baptism of desire here.  If it's "the sacrament... without which no man was ever justified," then they have a shot.  I'm pretty sure I've seen where it was, in fact, "faith" that was the antecedent.  (Don't think I haven't read this exact page before.  It's almost certain I have.)

Quote:Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

[In terms of a syllogism, we have the infallible major premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation," the infallible minor premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," and the conclusion: "True and natural water is necessary for salvation." This conclusion is not itself infallible, because it is the product of reasoning external to the Council's. Still, it is a strong argument.]

As always, I appreciate the intellectual honesty here, but I disagree as to the strength of the argument.  This is the passage of which I was thinking when I said something to the effect of "It seems clear from the context that Trent had no intention of defining that BoD is non-salvific."  I think I say that for a very good reason-- if you look at almost all of the passages listed, every one of them talks about a sacrament and/or its desire, as a means of justification, I believe (I'm tired and skimming and partly working from memory, so you might catch me in an error, but I don't  think so).  Now, once one is justified, all one has to do is persevere in the state of justice in order to be saved.  Thus, if BoD is sufficient for justification, it is sufficient for salvation.

I will add that I absolutely agree with this part, and the definition given at the end:

Quote:5. Regarding baptism of desire:

◦No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
◦Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)

However, that being said, "the obligation to receive Baptism by water" does remain, but it's not such an obligation that if a person failed, through no fault of their own, they would be damned.

More important than all of this is the perennial practice of the Church, which has been to withhold baptism from catechumens until they are properly catechized.  She does not do this with infants, because they have no other means of salvation than the sacrament itself.  In the Church, the supreme law is the salvation of souls.  Lex suprema, salus animarum.  She would be taking an awful, I daresay an unmotherly risk, if she didn't believe in BoD.  The Church's perennial practice is informed by her perennial doctrine-- whether it's been explicitly defined or no.  I truly believe it's as simple as that, in this case. 

Almost 101, if you like.
Reply
#64
I think the real problem comes in when people take the position I've espoused and then run with that into the camp of false-ecumenism, i.e. the "just be a good muslim/protestant/etc." and essentially lie to people and say they don't have to become Catholic. It's a technical truth, yes, but it's like saying someone doesn't have to go to the oncologist to get their cancer cured since the oncologist still loses patients and others have done it with herbs. True, yes, but one is much better off going to the oncologist. I'm not espousing crazy herb lady remedies as on par with good medicine, so to speak. I'm just saying we can't discount such a notion as God having a method for dealing with what human beings continually bugger up for themselves and others.

The Spirit of Vatican II crowd is sitting in the waiting room giving out herb lady advice and people are dying left and right for it. Similarly, the medical students would do well to understand that before there was medicine-as-we-know-it, there was medicine. Make sense?

It's a fine line. Like a see-saw. We must stand on the fulcrum so it doesn't tip either way into the hell below it.

Reply
#65
Quote:Well, again, it's a matter of reading it in-- dare I say it?  I suppose I have no choice-- in context.

That's funny!  Well, you're not abusing the term, so go ahead and say it! 
Quote:I'm working from memory here, but the issue turns, at least in part, on what the bolded "which" above refers back to.  If its antecedent is the nearest noun, faith, it doesn't offer any undue support to the MICM's position.  If it refers back to 'sacrament' or 'baptism', they have a stronger case.  And in fact, this is perfectly verifiable:  if we go back to the original Latin, I would expect sine qua if we refer back to faith, which is feminine, but sine quo if we refer back to 'sacrament' or 'baptism' which are both neuter.  I'm not going to look them up tonight, but as I say, one certainly could do so, and if you persevere in your requests, I might even do it myself.

Do you see the distinction I'm making?  If it's "faith, without which no man was ever justified," then there's no real help for those who deny baptism of desire here.

MICM does not deny that BoD can justify - they deny that it saves.  Justification happens, as it did for the just who died in the Old Covenant, in this life.  Salvation happens in the next.  The earliest a soul could be saved was at the Ascension.  It's important to remember the distinction between justification and salvation. 
Quote:Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

[In terms of a syllogism, we have the infallible major premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation," the infallible minor premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," and the conclusion: "True and natural water is necessary for salvation." This conclusion is not itself infallible, because it is the product of reasoning external to the Council's. Still, it is a strong argument.]
Quote:As always, I appreciate the intellectual honesty here, but I disagree as to the strength of the argument.  This is the passage of which I was thinking when I said something to the effect of "It seems clear from the context that Trent had no intention of defining that BoD is non-salvific."

MICM has never said that the Council of Trent intended to define BoD as non-salvific.  Remember that there's a difference between proving something, and arguing something.  We can take the Council of Trent and argue that there's nothing in it that denies Fr. Feeney's teaching without going so far as saying it proves BoD is not salvific.  The difference is the context!  What the Council proves is very clear.  What can be inferred is also clear but it takes some study because there's been so much confusion.  It does not infer that a soul can be saved by BoD.
Quote:5. Regarding baptism of desire:

◦No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
◦Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)
Quote:However, that being said, "the obligation to receive Baptism by water" does remain, but it's not such an obligation that if a person failed, through no fault of their own, they would be damned.

If there is no obligation for baptism with water for salvation, but for something else, what is that something else?
Quote:More important than all of this is the perennial practice of the Church, which has been to withhold baptism from catechumens until they are properly catechized.  She does not do this with infants, because they have no other means of salvation than the sacrament itself.  In the Church, the supreme law is the salvation of souls.  Lex suprema, salus animarum.  She would be taking an awful, I daresay an unmotherly risk, if she didn't believe in BoD.  The Church's perennial practice is informed by her perennial doctrine-- whether it's been explicitly defined or no.

None of the above contradicts what MICM has always taught.  Why do we withhold baptism with water from people who haven't been catechized?  Because explicit faith is also necessary for salvation.  MICM has never taught that baptism with water is all one needs (except in the case of children, of course).
Reply
#66
For the purposes of this conversation, I have transcribed the invaluable commentary of the great Thomist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange on the issue under discussion (in Latin, so perhaps some kind soul would accurately translate the most applicable parts). I hope no one would accuse Fr. of being a moderist, yet he says the following:

"Ex hoc quod quivis tenetur suscipere divinam revelationem sufficienter propostiam, sequitur gravis obligatio pro unoquoque ingrediendi Ecclesiam catholicam; nam historice constat, Christum Iesum a Deo missum instituisse Ecclesiam catholicam propriis notis discernibilem, tanquam fidei regulam.

Sub poena enim damnationis Christus omnibus praecepit hominibus ut doctrinam necnon leges et sacramenta a Corpore Apostolorum acciperent: “Praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae; qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit: qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur cumque mandavi vobis” – item tota Traditio affirmat salutem non esse extra Ecclesiam.

Ad corpus Ecclesiae pertinent baptizati, qui exterius doctrinam catholicam profitentur sub Rom. Pontificis magisterio, in communione fidelium. Ad animam vero Ecclesiae pertinent omnes homines qui internam fidem et caritatem habent.

Unde qui culpabiliter extra corpus Ecclesiae usque ad finem vitae manet, salvus fieri nequit; culpabilis est autem, qui, cum serio dubitat, non quaerit veritatem, et a fortiori qui, sciens et volens Eccleasiam non ingreditur, quam ut veram agnoscit.

Qui vero inclupabiliter extra corpus Ecclesiae manet, salvus esse potest, dummodo per fidem et caritatem, vel contritionem perfectam, ad animam Ecclesiae pertineat.

Ideo necessarium est necessitate medii ad salutem pertinere realiter ad animam Ecclesiae pertinere ad corpus Ecclesiae, pro adultis in re vel in voto (seu desiderio implicito), pro infantibus in re – Pertinere ad corpus Ecclesiae est adultis necessarium etiam necessitate praecepti – Haec autem obligation veram libertatem non minuit; e contra secundum hanc viam, ut ait S. Paulus, “et ipsa creatura liberabitur a sevitute corruptionis, in libertatem gloriae filiorium Dei”

Pius IX docet: “Tenedum quippe ex fide est, extra Apostolicam Romanum Ecclesiam salvum fieri neminem posse, hanc esse unicam salutis arcam hanc qui non fuerit ingressus diluvio periturum; sed tamen pro certo partier habendum est, qui verae religionis laborent, si ea sit invincibilis, nulla ipsos obstringi huiusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini” (Den. 1647). Idem Pontifex in alia Encyclica scribit: “Notuum Nobis Vobisquo est, eos, qui invincibili circa sanctissamam nostrum religionem ignorant laborant, quique naturealem legem eiusque praecepta in omnium cordibus a Deo insculta sedulo servantes ac Deo obedire parati, honestam rectamque virtam agunt, posse, divinae lucis et gratiae operante virtute, aeternam consequi vitam, cum Deus … minime patiatur, quempiam aeternis puniri suppliciis, qui voluntariae culpae reatum non habeat. Sed notissimum quoque est catholicum dogma, neminem scilicet extra catholicam Ecclesiam posse salvari, et contumacies adversus eiusdem Ecclesiae auctoritatem … pertinaciter divisos aeternam non posse obtinere salute … - Absit vero, ut catholicae Ecclesiae filii ullo unquam modo inimici sint iis, qui eisdem fidei caritatisque vinculis nobiscum minime sunt coniuncti, quin immo illos … adiuvare semper studeant, et imprimis … ad catholicam veritatem et ad amantissimam matrem Ecclesiam reducere contendant” (Den. 1677, seq.)


As I said, I transcribed this from Lagrange's work De Revelatione, so there may be a few errors of letters here or there.
Reply
#67
Just throwing it into Google translate (which is admittedly deficient), he says the same thing I said in my last long post.

It all goes back to natural law. It gets weird with Baptism in the Protestant milieu and as the theologian you provided links for makes clear, nothing about the Church being the Church is clear for many. E.g. submission to King of England when no understanding of the existence of the throne.

Reply
#68
MICM is very well aware that a salvific BoD has been taught by holy priests and even Doctors of the Church, and even St. Pius X.  They do not in any way accuse these holy men of being modernists.  They just disagree with them on this point, that's all.  We can disagree on this point without condemning each other.  Because for salvation it is only necessary to believe the Apostles Creed (as well be baptized).  The necessary beliefs can be summed up like this:
St. John Neumann catechism Wrote:There is only one God.

There are 3 persons in this one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

God is supremely just, and He rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

God the Son was made Man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation, and redeemed us by His Sufferings and Death.

It's not necessary for salvation to believe that there is no salvific BoD.  It is necessary to believe the above, and to be baptized (some say desire for it is sufficient, some say water is necessary). 

It might seem like a mystery why God allows these saintly men to teach something that can be argued to be inconsistent with defined doctrine.  If I may be so bold as to guess, I think He might allow only one man at a time to be infallible under certain strict conditions (i.e. the pope when defining), and allow many holy men to be mistaken, for 2 reasons:  first, to highlight those teachings that are necessary to believe for our salvation (BoD is not in this category) and second, to prevent us from falling into idol worship of those holy men.  That's just a guess.
Reply
#69
Quote:It's not necessary for salvation to believe that there is no salvific BoD.  It is necessary to believe the above, and to be baptized (some say desire for it is sufficient, some say water is necessary).

By this standard, are you arguing that all Protestants are saved? They clearly believe what you present as necessary conditions of belief. In order not to be self-contradictory aren't you basically endorsing what a modernist would say about any Christian sect other than Catholics that preserve valid baptism?
Reply
#70
(08-15-2012, 12:22 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: MICM is very well aware that a salvific BoD has been taught by holy priests and even Doctors of the Church, and even St. Pius X.  They do not in any way accuse these holy men of being modernists.  They just disagree with them on this point, that's all.  We can disagree on this point without condemning each other.  Because for salvation it is only necessary to believe the Apostles Creed (as well be baptized).  The necessary beliefs can be summed up like this:
St. John Neumann catechism Wrote:There is only one God.

There are 3 persons in this one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

God is supremely just, and He rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

God the Son was made Man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation, and redeemed us by His Sufferings and Death.

It's not necessary for salvation to believe that there is no salvific BoD.  It is necessary to believe the above, and to be baptized (some say desire for it is sufficient, some say water is necessary). 

It might seem like a mystery why God allows these saintly men to teach something that can be argued to be inconsistent with defined doctrine.  If I may be so bold as to guess, I think He might allow only one man at a time to be infallible under certain strict conditions (i.e. the pope when defining), and allow many holy men to be mistaken, for 2 reasons:  first, to highlight those teachings that are necessary to believe for our salvation (BoD is not in this category) and second, to prevent us from falling into idol worship of those holy men.  That's just a guess.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here?  ???

A Catholic who disagrees in even one part of the faith, falls away from the faith and thus if they meet the definition of heretic fall away from the body of the Church and unless they are reconciled before their death are damned. To disagree with theologians depending on the level of assent amongst them can be normal and acceptable or Rash or Rash and sinful or seriously sinful and so on, to disagree with the ordinary teachings of the pope is normally mortally sinful, to disagree with the ordinary and universal magisterium is the same.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)