It is currently Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:27 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
 Baptism of Desire and Blood 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Unless the Administrator has had a change of heart, I would thinK that "won't be permitted to be discussed here" is a clear statement.


Fri May 26, 2006 4:21 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Unless the Administrator has had a change of heart, I would thinK that "won't be permitted to be discussed here" is a clear statement.


Yes, it is, thank you Geoff.

Now, since you two scruffs (you know who you are) have decided to break the rules of the forum openly and apparently without guile, I won't ban you immediately. But I will the next time you attempt to deny the common teaching of approved theologians on these questions.

If you want to discuss something useful, let's discuss the role and weight of theologians in genere. If you manage to demonstrate that it is possible for the Catholic Church not to notice that all of her theologians went off track a few centuries ago, then I will re-open the discussion on these truths.

Please remember, any attempt to shoehorn the BOD/BOB denials into the discussion will result in your banning. It's your choice.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 26, 2006 4:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:25 pm
Posts: 3
New post Whats up?
You said you would tolerate a response to the common consent issue. The Dimond Bros. response to that is challenging: do you not agree?


Jay


Fri May 26, 2006 5:21 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Whats up?
StAugustine wrote:
You said you would tolerate a response to the common consent issue. The Dimond Bros. response to that is challenging: do you not agree?


Jay


"Challenging." Er, sort of. We'll see how clever it is when you edit out the references to BOD/BOB and present only the "common consent" material.

Now, please remain within the rules because it is 1.25AM here and I want to go back to bed and not have Divine Providence wake me to delete your posts as He has done so far. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:25 pm
Posts: 3
New post The Common Consent....edited
TUAS LIBENTER AND THE SO-CALLED “COMMON” CONSENT OF THEOLOGIANS


In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich (Tuas Libenter), upon which Fr. Cekada bases his argument, Pope Pius IX says that Catholic writers are bound by those matters which, though not taught by express decree of the Roman See, are nevertheless taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium as divinely revealed and held by theologians in universal and common agreement.



Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”[409]



As referenced at the beginning of this document, it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible. In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic writers are bound by those matters which “are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Notice, the obligation to the opinion of the theologians only arises from the fact that these matters were already taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the Church and therefore also held by universal and common agreement. In his application of this teaching in his article, Fr. Cekada conveniently skips over the “universal” requirement, focusing only on the word “common.”



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, 1. General Principle: “All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.”



Notice how Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal and common agreement”! If he had faithfully applied the “universal” part of it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader would easily have picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation. And is baptism of desire something that has been held by universal and common agreement? Most certainly not; in fact, it is just the opposite.



Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”[410]


The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”[411]



The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the Church from the beginning. This point alone totally blows Fr. Cekada’s thesis away.



In fact, if the “common” error of theologians at a particular time constituted a teaching of the Church that one is bound to follow, then all Catholics would be bound by the heresy of religious liberty (besides all the others) taught at Vatican II, since this has been accepted by “common” consent of the so-called “Catholic theologians” since Vatican II. And this is why Fr. Cekada offers the following pitiful response to that very objection to his quite obviously false thesis.



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Answering the Objection about Vatican II – D. Theologians and Vatican II: “The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by church authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.”



Oh, I see, because Fr. Cekada deems that the “theologians” who were “primarily responsible” for Vatican II were “European Modernists” and “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to dump his entire thesis that a Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent of theologians under pain of mortal sin. How convenient! The reader should easily see that by such a statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and completely refuting himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite dedicated to his heresy to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a few of the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is therefore free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II, is a hopeless argument; for the fact remains that the “common” consent of purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II was to endorse Vatican II’s heretical documents, even if a few of the more radical ones were timidly “silenced” before Vatican II.



Hence, as anyone with eyes to see can see, if one is free to reject the “common” consent of Vatican II theologians because one deems them “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” then one can just as well dump the fallible, contradictory teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians...

Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching.



Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”[414]



Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”[415]



Fr. Cekada’s argument, in fact, would rule out the possibility of a great apostasy, and would render Our Lord’s words in Luke 18:8 (When the Son of Man returns do you think He will find faith on earth?) impossible, since all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is. Needless to say, Fr. Cekada’s argument is completely absurd, as is obvious to the sincere Catholic with common sense.



I will quote Pope Pius XII again, who himself contradicts the above assertion.



Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”[416]



Jay Dyer


Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
G'Day Jan,

First question: Why did the writer fail to answer Fr. Cekada's actual argument, and substitute it for a straw man instead?
Answer: He couldn't answer the real argument.

Here's the key quote, not mentioned by your writer: “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

Second question: What ever happened to this quote? "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” Condemned proposition. Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
Answer: Your writer doesn't agree with this solemn condemnation, because it exactly defines his own heterodox belief.

It's like Ven. Pius IX knew the Feeneyites were coming, isn't it? :)

For those who wish to know what Fr. Cekada actually wrote, here is the link:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... &catname=2

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 26, 2006 10:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
An interesting article by the stalwart Father Joseph Fenton touching the subject of the status of the teachings of theologians is available on-line here:

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3012&longdesc

Although it must be said that writing so close to the council itself Father Fenton displays an appalling but understandable naivete concerning the strength and extent of the bad guys, his other points remain sound:


Quote:
What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.

It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century.
(emphasis added)


Sat May 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
I love this forum! That said, the issue under discussion here is exactly what I alluded to in the original posting to V2: Interpret or Reject, when I pointed out several issues that had undergone changed positions by theologians over the course of centuries. Those issues being: geocentrism/heliocentrism for 1500 years the Church in all her opinions was always geocentric (and this issue may be crucial as to the fact of the dispute whether there was an infallible declaration given by Pope Paul III (see John Daly's Theological Status of Heliocentrism here: http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/tsh1.pdf); usury (which is also in the infallible category due to Sacred Scripture's denunciation of it) (this may be proper development of this issue, but there is no doubt that until Calvin, theologians were gave little in the way of different definitions of loans, etc.); slavery (and, I know that there appears to be different types of slavery, but I think during the first centuries of the Church (actually, for 1500 years) there were not those categories); BOB/BOD (I am not a Feenyite, but there is clearly a change on the part of theologians through the centuries, with little discourse on the topic probably until the rise of Protestantism - we all know of course the several statements that one can quote from the first centuries, but the bulk of theological speculation appears to be opposed); finally, NFP or periodic continence (again we all know that total abstinence was never a problem, but the use of NFP or periodic continence was never really alluded to as far as I can see until the latter part of the 19th century).

Are all these doctrines undergoing natural, acceptable development along the lines posited by Newman? I seem to remember in the sede conference given here in the US in New York in July, 2002; that John Daly spent a goodly amount of time on Father Sixtus Cartechini's, S.J. book De Valore Notarum Theologicarum showing how in Chapter IV that part of the Ordinary Magisterium is common theological opinion. This book by the way was used by the Holy Office, according to Mr. Daly, right up until V2.

SO, WHAT IS CONSIDERED COMMON CONSENSUS OF THEOLOGICAL OPINION AND CAN IT CHANGE WITHOUT HARMING THE INFALLIBILITY GIVEN TO THE ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM?


Sat May 27, 2006 5:05 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
SO, WHAT IS CONSIDERED COMMON CONSENSUS OF THEOLOGICAL OPINION AND CAN IT CHANGE WITHOUT HARMING THE INFALLIBILITY GIVEN TO THE ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM?


Dear Teresa,

I don't agree with your statement to the effect that the common doctrine changed on BOD/BOB. Heliocentrism is a study in itself, however I think we can agree that the common opinion changed somewhat - but in what way etc. requires detailed treatment, so that any general principles drawn from such an example are accurate.

Many thanks to Geoff Tribbe for finding and posting that article by Monsignor Fenton (himself a consultor to the Holy Office). On a side note, please consider this sentence: "If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century."

This sentence is entirely incompatible with the novel explanation of the ordinary universal magisterium as "that which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all." This sentence is in line with the doctrine I quoted from Zapalena and Co. on Angelqueen, which describes the ordinary universal magisterium as the ordinary teaching activity of the bishops when they agree, irrespective of "time."

This is a crucial point for refuting the SSPX explantion of the crisis.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 27, 2006 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I don’t pretend to know anything about the Heliocentric/Geocentric issue but I would like to know what this issue has to do with theological truth…Faith and morals? Maybe there something simple that I’m not understanding…it does happen occasionally. :)

If the majority of theologians were “geocentrists” and geocentrism was a theological error, then wouldn’t this error have lead to other theological errors, given the length of time this error was held? If one would believe today, that the earth stood still and the universe moved around it would it be anything other than just a mistaken idea? I know of one good Catholic who didn’t believe that man landed on the moon…it didn’t seem to affect her faith at all.


Sun May 28, 2006 2:36 am
Profile

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post 
John Lane wrote:
"If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century."

This sentence is entirely incompatible with the novel explanation of the ordinary universal magisterium as "that which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all." This sentence is in line with the doctrine I quoted from Zapalena and Co. on Angelqueen, which describes the ordinary universal magisterium as the ordinary teaching activity of the bishops when they agree, irrespective of "time."

This is a crucial point for refuting the SSPX explantion of the crisis.


Dear John,

So the SSPX explanation forces ordinary Catholics to continually "sift" Church teaching to see what does and doesn't agree


Sun May 28, 2006 10:45 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Texas
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I don’t pretend to know anything about the Heliocentric/Geocentric issue but I would like to know what this issue has to do with theological truth…Faith and morals? Maybe there something simple that I’m not understanding…it does happen occasionally. :)

If the majority of theologians were “geocentrists” and geocentrism was a theological error, then wouldn’t this error have lead to other theological errors, given the length of time this error was held? If one would believe today, that the earth stood still and the universe moved around it would it be anything other than just a mistaken idea? I know of one good Catholic who didn’t believe that man landed on the moon…it didn’t seem to affect her faith at all.


Robert,

Maybe St. Robert Bellarmine's letter to a priest who was intent on propogating the falsehood of heliocentrism will help explain the position of the Church regarding geocentrism (which has never been rescinded and can never be rescinded). This is also a good example of why a teaching of the Church can be confused for so many centuries as is the dogma of baptism of Water.

St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Catholic Apologist of his time, wrote the following to
Father Paolo Foscarini on April 12, 1613:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise, which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstrations; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the Holy Fathers.

I add that the words "The sun riseth and goeth down, and returnneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north." (Ecclesiastes 1: 5,6) were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

_________________
I am not Robert Sungenis.
He is better looking.


Sun May 28, 2006 10:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
RobertS wrote:
Quote:
This is also a good example of why a teaching of the Church can be confused for so many centuries as is the dogma of baptism of Water.


I don't have confusion on the DOGMATIC teaching on Baptism of Water. Nor do I believe the teaching of the Church has been confused for so many centuries on this DOGMA. It seems straightforward to me.

RobertS, with all due respect for you as my brother in Christ, and as my dear sister would say: End of subject!
Is it? Finally? I hope so. :roll:

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sun May 28, 2006 10:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Texas
New post 
Abba wrote:
RobertS wrote:
Quote:
This is also a good example of why a teaching of the Church can be confused for so many centuries as is the dogma of baptism of Water.


I don't have confusion on the DOGMATIC teaching on Baptism of Water. Nor do I believe the teaching of the Church has been confused for so many centuries on this DOGMA. It seems straightforward to me.

RobertS, with all due respect for you as my brother in Christ, and as my dear sister would say: End of subject!
Is it? Finally? I hope so. :roll:


Well that makes at least two of us..... There is only ONE baptism, ONE sacrament...

Image

_________________
I am not Robert Sungenis.
He is better looking.


Mon May 29, 2006 2:56 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Clearly in the geo/helio area the Church has not officially changed her position, but a change has occurred and after 1500 years. It is also hotly debated if the geo position was infallibly pronounced by Pope Paul III. The Church removed from the index the books on the helio position and allowed the faithful to hold the helio position. This position would have been unthinkable in the centuries prior to the change. This issue is important because the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is at issue, or so St. Robert Bellarmine and the 'common consensus' of theologians thought. Of course, being centuries away from this change, we seldom, if ever, think about it. But, nevertheless, the Church allowed the faithful to hold a position that for centuries was untenable. Allowing the faithful to hold a position that was clearly forbidden for centuries, begs the question of what's infallible and what's not.

Now, if the Church did not issue an infallible decree by Pope Paul III, it appears that this would still fall under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium's infallibility, under the 'common consensus' of theologians, as well as the college of bishops in union with Rome. IMO, this issue clearly needs study to make sense of the Ordinary Magisterium. What happened here?

BTW, the SSPX has a clearer presentation on their position of the Ordinary Magisterium, which I'm sure most have read, but, if not, here's the link: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infal ... terium.htm


Mon May 29, 2006 3:49 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Roberts posted
Quote:
Well that makes at least two of us..... There is only ONE baptism, ONE sacrament


Can you show me where a Doctor of the Church, or any approved Theologian, that clearly expounds Baptsim of Desire and Blood, also taught that there is more then one Sacrament of Baptism?

For example, St. Alphonsus de Liguori teaches ( with the full approbation of the Church);

"It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)

Does he teach that there are more then one Sacrament of Baptism?


In Christ our King,
Vincent


Mon May 29, 2006 7:24 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Can you show me where a Doctor of the Church, or any approved Theologian, that clearly expounds Baptsim of Desire and Blood, also taught that there is more then one Sacrament of Baptism?


Dear Vince,

This subject is off-limits for Feeneyites, because they don't submit to the authorities of the Church in doctrinal questions, and therefore they sow error, confusion and distress. So please don't encourage them by asking them questions, even obviously rhetorical ones for which they have no answer. :)

RobertS, you're on notice. Until you provide your theological sources (and then explain why you learn from them), you're not participating in any discussions. And in fact I'm doing you a favour by making you face reality.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 10:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Texas
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Can you show me where a Doctor of the Church, or any approved Theologian, that clearly expounds Baptsim of Desire and Blood, also taught that there is more then one Sacrament of Baptism?


Dear Vince,

This subject is off-limits for Feeneyites, because they don't submit to the authorities of the Church in doctrinal questions, and therefore they sow error, confusion and distress. So please don't encourage them by asking them questions, even obviously rhetorical ones for which they have no answer. :)

RobertS, you're on notice. Until you provide your theological sources (and then explain why you learn from them), you're not participating in any discussions. And in fact I'm doing you a favour by making you face reality.


John,

My theological sources are conveniently gathered at
[deleted by moderator]

You said "why you learn from them" but I'm assuming you meant "what you learned from them".

I learned that saints are not infallible since I can find saints that hold to baptism of water only, I can find saints that believed in bod only and saints that believed in bob/bod.

Needless to say you still need to explain why the current definition of bob/bod is so mutated as to mean that one doesn't even have to "desire" the sacrament to be saved.

So even if one believed in bob/bod as theorized by some saints then 99% of so called traditionalists would be heretics even by that standard.

Puts one into an interesting dilemma now doesn't it?

Maybe that is the curse of rejecting baptism of water only as preached by Our Lord Himself?

_________________
I am not Robert Sungenis.
He is better looking.


Mon May 29, 2006 1:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
BTW, the SSPX has a clearer presentation on their position of the Ordinary Magisterium, which I'm sure most have read, but, if not, here's the link: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infal ... terium.htm


Answered in the other thread, for the sake of keeping things in one place. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=29

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 1:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
RobertS wrote:
My theological sources are conveniently gathered at [deleted by moderator]


Right, so you don't learn from approved sources - you learn from modern-day pseudo-apostles.

RobertS wrote:
You said "why you learn from them" but I'm assuming you meant "what you learned from them".


No, I wrote "why" and I meant "why." Do you or do you not accept the truth that you are bound by the doctrines that the theologians teach as "certain"?

RobertS wrote:
I learned that saints are not infallible...


But the Dimonds are? Or you? No, obviously not. But you still prefer your own opinion to that of a saint or a doctor. Which is why you can't post here. This is a Catholic forum.

RobertS wrote:
So even if one believed in bob/bod as theorized by some saints then 99% of so called traditionalists would be heretics even by that standard.


A man with your dispositions is in no position to accuse another of heresy. My goodness.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 3:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Texas
New post 
So John, I suppose your washing your hands over the dogma of Baptism by Water and the Holy Ghost?

Hmmmmm I wonder who that reminds me of....??? I wonder.......

_________________
I am not Robert Sungenis.
He is better looking.


Mon May 29, 2006 3:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
RobertS wrote:
So John, I suppose your washing your hands over the dogma of Baptism by Water and the Holy Ghost?

Hmmmmm I wonder who that reminds me of....??? I wonder.......


RobertS,

Listen son, you need to stop and reflect. Ask yourself how your doctrinal fabric was formed. Hint: I can see it from here, and I know virtually nothing about you. Particularly you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself, "Have I done the hard work necessary to possess the confidence I express in my own judgements?" And the answer is patently, "No." You have not done the work. You have not even got a consistent and reasonable worldview. You trust the Dimonds and yet you won't trust the apparoved theologians. Why not? Because at the tribunal of your own personal (badly-formed) intellect, the Dimonds are judged to be good and sound Catholics, and the theologians approved by countless popes were, well, "fallible." As if the Dimonds are not! See what I mean? You haven't even got the most basic notions clear in your head, and you are deciding who is a schismatic and who is a heretic, and all manner of awful judgements.

Unless you are prepared to engage in this discussion, you're finished here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 10:28 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.