Which of the points of the Syllabus of Errors are defunct because of Vatican II?
I quoted Saints, a Pope Saint's catechism, a literal instance of a saint who qualified for BoB, and the Angelic Doctor praised by many Popes for his orthodox teachings. I don't think there is anything else I can reference that will change your mind, so I'm going to stop posting on this thread.
(05-20-2017, 12:32 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: If you browsed the website http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/about_us.htm you would know that Mr. Drew is not a priest and has never claimed to be a priest. Nor does he claim on the website to have any "credentials as a theologian."

Good, then he has no business pontificating as if he were the Magisterium on the subject. That explains his theological errors.

To associate one's name with a "Roman Catholic Mission" seems to suggest that he is in some way authoritatively speaking on the subject with some credentials. He does not, and that does a disservice to good Catholics who might think he has any authority to so speak.

(05-20-2017, 12:32 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Will you now answer my question? Suppose you were Pope and you wanted to say, in a way that no one could squirm out of, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church. Could you put it more clearly, more strongly than it is in these statements?

Pope Innocent III, at the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, in the year 1215, speaking infallibly, “There is only one universal Church of the faithful and outside of it none at all can be saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII, in his bull, Unam Sanctam, dated 1302, speaking infallibly, “We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, in his bull, Cantate Domino, dated 1441, speaking infallibly, “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire, ‘which was prepared for the Devil and his angels,’ unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety, and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Yes, I will answer your questions, since you've answered mine, but I am not about to waste my time.

Thus, one caveat, though : Since I will do you the service of providing a calm and reasonably reply, I expect you to be willing to to breathe, pray the Veni Creator,'and then thoroughly read, digest and think about the responses before you reply.

If you do so, and post an intelligent response addressing the matter at hand (thus not strewn with lots of new quotes and tangents) I'm willing to continue to discuss.

If you're not willing to do so, this is the only reply you will get.

Prelude done, my reply to your questions :

First, were I elected pope I would sack the Cardinals who made such a poor decision, appoint competent ones, then resign so they could choose someone who actual was qualified.

Secondly, All of your quotes must be read in the light of the entire Magisterium.

That's not a modernistic idea, at all, and precisely how we can properly understand the errors in the Vatican II documents (whether they are heresy, error or just ambiguous and favoring heresy or error or if they are acceptable). For instance we can see that Dignitatis Humanæ not only seems to contradict Mortalium animos, but that if you look to Leo XIII, and every time the Magisterium spoke on the subject of "religious liberty" you see a consistent line of argument. Dignitatis humanæ is an entirely novel teaching. Thus it's not just pitting this document against another, nor is it something which is changeable, so it must be some kind of outlier or error.  Is it heresy or is it error? That's found out by exploring the subject concerned, which, if you read what DH actually says is a disciplinary matter (whether the State must allow public false worship) but which touches closely to dogma (indirectly favoring its denial, but without explicitly denying it). That means it's an error which favors heresy. But it's only when one takes the whole of the Magisterium together that one can properly understand the error in the context and make a solid argument about the matter.

If we just take a knee jerk reaction we would think the DH rather teaches indeifferentism, which it doesn't. It only favors indifferentism by asserting the State must respect a "natural right" to let those in error publicly profess their error.

In your case, you're quoting several documents, but you've failed to put them in the light of the entire Magisterium. In short, you're quote grabbing and in doing so you are rejecting the actual Catholic teaching, by substituting your own interpretation in place of the Magisterium. You judge that Pope X's bull means A, so you reject Pope Y's statement on the matter which clarifies A or the universal opinion of theologians which explains A in practical contexts.

When one does that, like Protestants quoting the Bible, the case if often overstated, and the import of the statement mischaracterized, and the actual doctrine perverted.

For instance, you quote Eugene IV. The problem is that, properly understood, this does not disqualify a (properly understood) salvific desire for Baptism. Why not? Well the Catholic doctrine is that all grace comes from Jesus Christ through the Church because the Church is the treasury of Christ's merits. If one receives an actual grace it is only through the medium of this treasury. So if a pagan who desires Baptism is extraordinarily given the gift of Faith, it's only because that grace came through the Church, even if it didn't come through a physical Sacrament. That's in the very rite of Infant Baptism : "Q. What do you ask of the Church? A. Faith"

One who is given Faith by God is given this grace only through the merits of Christ which come via the Church, so "before death [is] joined with Her" then.

In fact, that's necessarily the case. In order to be Sacramentally Baptized one above the age of reason must already have the Faith, because he must willingly profess the Faith and accept Baptism. How did he get this supernatural grace, if he's not yet Baptized. He was naturally prepared by instruction by the priest or a catechist, but at some point God gave him an actual grace.

You quote Pope Innocent III, but then ignore that the same Pope wrote (Debitum pastoralis officii):
Quote:Indeed, you [the bishop of Metz] have intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.' We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."

Those two statements have to be reconciled unless you want Pope Innocent III to be a heretic, leading to a 13th century sedevacantism thesis.

And if Boniface VIII is to be accepted literally and you've quoted without any qualification, Mr. Drew has an issue. His "Independent" church is not subject to the bishop of Harrisburg, thus operates in at least a visibly schismatic manner. Add to this Fr. Waters (his priest) was (unjustly, so invalidly) excommunicated by his bishop for schism in taking the post in York. Still, if you insist on reading Boniface VIII in as strictly as necessary to make your case, you end up making Mr. Drew and Fr. Waters among those lost, because not actually subject to the Bishop and Pope.

And all of those quotes must be read in the light of the Council of Trent (and the Roman Catechism), various Popes (St. Siricius, Innocent II, Innocent III, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Pius XIII) along with Doctors and Fathers like St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazienzen, St. Cyril, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damacus, St. Bede, St. Bernard;  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and the Church's Canon Law, all of which could be quotes to support the notion that the true supernatural desire for Baptism, could permit one who dies not receiving the Sacrament to still be saved.

Most succinct and clear on this are Canon Law (CIC 1917, canon 737) "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”

And St. Robert Bellarmine, who explains the history of the doctrine in ch. 6 of his De Sacramento Baptismi, : "Among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on, that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity ... it certainly must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

That is reconcilable with all of your quotes if you do not set up straw men and misrepresent what those quotes say and mean from their plain language.

But the fundamental problem is actually your first question : What would I do if Pope?

We are not the Magisterium, and our opinion on what the Magisterium teaches doesn't matter. That's not our job to be Pope. It's our job to be good Catholics : to learn our catechism, grow in the spiritual life by learning the basics of ascetics, by prayer and the practicing the Faith in daily life toward our family and others, drawing as many as possible, by the graces we've merited through that spiritual life, to God. If after that we have the ability to study our Faith more in depth, then we read the Magisterium and credentialed theologians (especially the Doctors and Father) to explain how this works.

In this context, it's sad that we waste so many words on Baptism of Desire and don't go out and try to get people actually Baptized and practicing the Faith.
(05-20-2017, 01:26 PM)St. Camillus Wrote:
(05-20-2017, 10:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I hope that's a mis-statement because if not it would be heresy.

Your accusations of "heresy" are meaningless because you believe that not only heretics, but also Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. can be saved as long as they don't know any better and are sincere. The Novus Ordo church does nothing to protect its members from heresy precisely because they believe, like you, that one does not have to hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate to be saved.

Tu quoque.

You've also made a straw man of what I accept. I do not accept what you assert I do. The degree of sincerity of a person is their error or how ignorant ignorant they are of the truth is not salvific in any way.

I do not accept that any heretic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or even Protestant can be saved. They have to abandon their error and accept the truth. They have to have supernatural Faith.

The heretic/Protestant/Orthodox one is easy. They have to abandon their error and either have a perfect act of contrition or confession.

The question is, though, does one need Sacramental Baptism to cease to be a Jew, Muslim or Hindu?

The Church says "no".

They need the Faith. To be saved they need Sanctifying Grace and Charity.

Does that come by Sacramental Baptism alone?

Again, the Church says "no".

But you are right ... my opinion doesn't matter. The Church's "opinion" does.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)