Salvation outside the church

[GerardP]

No Gerard, it is not sufficient to accept and revere the dogmas of the Church…you must also subject yourself 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.

Are you the only one who can’t see what this says? … the language is very clear.

Let’s go through it line by line:

"it is not sufficient for** learned Catholics** to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church,

Pius IX is talking to theologians. They are the “learned Catholics”.

but that it is also necessary to subject themselves

(the theologians)

to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are

1. issued by the Pontifical Congregations,

There has been no decision issued by a Pontifical Congregation that defines “Baptism of Desire” as a situation making water unnecessary. The 1949 letter of the Holy Office was never entered into the Acts of the Apostolic See so, it has no binding force. It’s just one bishop’s opinion.

and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,

Baptism of Desire or Blood prior to the discovery of the New Word was hardly even an issue. Theologians went scouring through the Fathers and Doctors trying to find ‘something’ to justify the existence and salvation of all of those pagans. Most of the time, they knowingly or unknowingly put their own spin on what the Fathers said.

so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

The necessity of Baptism with water is not a position that deserves theological censure. Fr. Feeney never had to renounce his views. Any of those groups who have since reconciled with Rome have also not been forced to renounce the consistent Catholic position on the matter.

 

[GerardP]

To those following this thread:

GerardP is apparently a Feeneyite and therefore denies that he must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith.

First, it’s funny that I’m a “Feeneyite” when I defend what Fr. Feeney defended. I’m an “SSPXer” or a “LeFebvrite” when I defend their positions. I’m a “Martinoid” when I defend the late Fr. Malachi Martin from unjust attacks and calumnies. When I defend Cardinal Bea or John XXIII for some of their positions, I’m “confusing”.

I’m a Catholic.

Next, the Feeney position is not the minimalist position of the theologians that Pius IX censured. Anyone who reads any of Fr. Feeney’s works or any other writers from the St. Benedict Center will know this.

He accepts that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium,

You are saying it is wrong to believe this?

but he denies that he must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority.

Truths yes. Errors No. Baptism of Desire without water is no truth.

He is quite wrong on both counts.

How am I wrong on the first point?

When a theologian mentions the phrase, “pertains to Faith” it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they “relate to matters of Faith” - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.

What about when theologians are wrong or are divided against this?

Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church.

Some examples of this are believing in the infallibility of canonizations or appearances of Our Lady or other private revelations.

In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies.

Those that I listed above are not sins.

Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the** theologians **as “certain”, but one would not thereby be a heretic.

There it is. “The Theologians” now have the power to bind and loose. To resist the “theologians” is now to resist the Magisterium of the Church.

In other words the Theologians are the fallible authority on the infallible teaching authority of the Church. You want to know what’s infallibly taught? That guy over there…yep the “theologian” He’ll tell you what’s infallible. Unless he’s wrong of course.

Cardinal Ottaviani used to pull this stunt against Pope John XXIII, he would thwart him at every turn and implement his own ideas and claim “This is the will of the Holy Father.” When it wasn’t.

GerardP seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case he cannot admit it while retaining his Feeneyite convictions.

You haven’t proven that this “truth” as you call it, is a “truth” at all.

The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the “authentic” magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith.

But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Actually the ordinary Magisterium is divided into the ordinary infallible and the authentic. The ordinary infallible is obviously “what has been taught everywhere by everyone always” and Popes invoke it most often by citing tradition and their predecessors.

The “authentic” magisterium is the Pope speaking his own opinions. (examples would be Pope Benedict’s personal skepticism about the literal interpretation of Genesis or his doubts about the existence of Limbo. )

You give the Pope his due deference to his office the same way you would accede to the wishes of your Mother. You give a presumption to the Pope or your superiors but if they are objectively wrong or they are predicting the weather, you don’t even have to listen to them.

(eg. the politics of John Paul II, his personalist philosophy, his errors regarding ecumenism etc. other examples would Pope John 22nd’s belief that no one sees the beatific vision until the final judgement.

 

[SFD]

This is very reassuring. I am not in the habit of reading theology manuals, and was actually quite worried at the idea of incurring mortal sin for disagreeing with a position that I did not know to be required belief (in other words, that the Church had not formally declared).

Then it wouldn’t be a mortal sin if you didn’t know it was required. It would still be an error. The material wrong act is there…but not the full consent of the will.

SFD

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

Secondly, you refer to Gerard as a Feenyite. You are some sort of Traditionalist, and refuse to accept the ‘digressions’ of Vatican I and Vatican II.

Vatican I? You are confused once again, mgrfin.

mgrfin:

So you are some old fashioned Traditionist. You also like to defend Sedevacantism. What you should be called, I don’t know. You and I don’t believe in the same Catholicism.

You can’t even get the basic catechism right…and no, we do not believe in the same things…that is clear.

mgrfin:

Thirdly, in a previous post you claimed that all ‘dogmas’ were ‘de fide’. That’s wrong, and I went through a whole list of dogmas, which are not ‘de fide’.

No, it’s not wrong. Typically the denial of a “dogma” is referred to as heresy. A Dogma is a Catholic teaching that is classified as “de fide”…“of faith”.

You are using the word dogma as a “truth”…all “truths” are dogmas in that sense…but they are not all “de fide”. The “truths” that are not yet “de fide” are the truths classified as less than de fide but still deserving some theological censure.

Here’s a partial list of theological notes and censures from, On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations:

Note: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide et Catholica.
Censure: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.

Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith, De fide ecclesiastica definita
Censure: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.

Note: Truth of Divine faith, De fide divina.
Censure: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership.

Note: Theologically certain.
Censure: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.

“The Church teaches infallibily when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and its bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful”. Baltimore Catechism, No. 3 Q 164.

Yes.

mgrfin:

A doctrine of faith or morals is a truth revealed by God dealing with what we must believe or what we must do in order to be saved. If it does not relate to salvation, then it is another matter.

All of the doctrines regarding faith and morals have not be infallibily defined. Nor are they all classified as de fide.

mgrfin:

Some things that are not defined infallibily by the Church may not have to believed if I have serious questions about them.

But if they are “theologically certain” or even “safe” they require your assent.

You are referring to doctrine that fall under the note “probable”.

On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)

Theological Note: Probable.

Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.

Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.

Effects of denial: None.

Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.

mgrfin:

Some times we must accept these non-infallibly defined truths not on faith, but on obedience to the authority of the Pope and in respect for his wisdom.

Do you see here that you make no distinctions after “infallibily defined” doctrines…as if anything not infallible DEFINED…is up for grabs…this is precisely the error Cardinal Manning spoke of here:

"This spirit began in Germany. It says: ‘I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.’ This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, “Four Great Evils of the Day”.)

SFD

 

[SFD]

That was gracious of him. But, we are not able to get him to understand that references to denial of belief defined in the Old Code of 1917 under Crimes, Penalties, Censures, etc., have been substantially changed.

Please keep that in mind that many penalties in the new Code are not ‘latae sententiae’, that is, automatic. Many must be levied by ecclesiatical authority, which is rarely done nowadays.

Also, these penalties and such can only apply to Catholics, not to non-Catholics. Only Catholics can be guilty of heresy, apostacy, and schism, therefore only those can earn penalites attached.

mgrfin,

You are still repeating this error. Can you actually answer the below and admit that you were wrong on a very basic catechism teaching…or maybe your new catechism doesn’t cover it.
" mgrfin:

Yes, insofar as someone is not invincibly ignorant of these divine laws. For example, someone might not be aware of the Ten Commandments.

peace

It’s impossible to be invincibly ignorant of most of the ten commandments (Sabbath observance being only exception I can think of). God can be known with certainty through natural reason, and most of the sins listed are intrinsically and gravely evil.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SFD:

No Gerard, it is not sufficient to accept and revere the dogmas of the Church…you must also subject yourself 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.

Are you the only one who can’t see what this says? … the language is very clear.

Okay, let’s go through your response.

GerardP:

Let’s go through it line by line:

"it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church,

Pius IX is talking to theologians. They are the “learned Catholics”.

I thought you said they were “pinheads”…but now that you see that they are “learned Catholics”…yes, Pius IX is addressing them. Do you think only the theologians must “subject yourself 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.” ?

Are the laity allowed to ignore this in principle?

GerardP:

but that it is also necessary to subject themselves

(the theologians) Yes, and all Catholics as well. Theologians are typically given a little more freedom in these matters…so if they are restricted by this, then lay Catholics are certainly restricted by it.

GerardP:

to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are

1. issued by the Pontifical Congregations,

There has been no decision issued by a Pontifical Congregation that defines “Baptism of Desire” as a situation making water unnecessary. The 1949 letter of the Holy Office was never entered into the Acts of the Apostolic See so, it has no binding force. It’s just one bishop’s opinion.

I’ve heard this before. The Holy Office letter states Catholic Doctrine correctly. But that’s not the issue here…

A sacramental Baptism requires correct matter and form. True water is the matter. No one has ever disputed that. We are not speaking of a sacramental baptism here…baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not sacraments…but they give the sanctifying grace necessary for salvation at the moment of death. These people were never members of the Church while in this world and no one has claimed that. They died within the Church because they possessed sanctifying grace.

GerardP:

and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,

Baptism of Desire or Blood prior to the discovery of the New Word was hardly even an issue.
What does that mean? St. Thomas taught it…and the Church Fathers did as well.

GerardP:

Theologians went scouring through the Fathers and Doctors trying to find ‘something’ to justify the existence and salvation of all of those pagans. Most of the time, they knowingly or unknowingly put their own spin on what the Fathers said.

More on this later…you’ve gotten this wrong, I believe.

SFD**

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

The necessity of Baptism with water is not a position that deserves theological censure.

The point is that the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are given AT A MINIMUM the theological note of theologically certain.
Cartechini S.J. (Rome:

Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.

Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than “temerarious”.

(g) Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: ** Usually, mortal sin of temerity.**
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.

Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles:

The following is a list of pre-Vatican II theologians who teach baptism of desire (=desiderii, flaminis, in voto, etc) and baptism of blood (=sanguinis, martyrii, etc.), together with a page reference to the accompanying binder. Two, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine, are Doctors of the Church. Many more such theologians can easily be found. These were merely the works in my private library.

Also given is the theological category (if any) each theologian has assigned to the teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. This “category” in theology (also called a theological “note,” “qualification,” etc.) indicates how close a teaching is to the truths God has revealed and obliges us to believe — whether it is “theologically certain,” “Catholic doctrine,” de fide (of the faith), etc,. (Some theologians simply teach the doctrines, and do not assign categories.)

Dogmatic Theologian, Page in Theol. Category Theol. Category

Moral Theologian or Canonist Dossier Desire Blood

1. Abarzuza, F.X. 2 de fide, theol. cert theol. cert.
2. Aertnys, I. 7 de fide teaches
3. Billot, Ludovicus Cardinal 10-20 teaches teaches
4. Cappello, Felix M. 23 teaches certain
5. Coronata, Matthaeus. 28 de fide teaches
6. Davis, Henry 32 teaches teaches
7. Herrmann, R.P.J. 35 de fide pertains to faith
8. Hervé, J.M. 38 theol. cert. theol. cert. at least
9. Hurter, H. 44 teaches teaches
10. Iorio, Thomas A. 47 teaches teaches
11. Lennerz, H. 49-59 teaches teaches
12. Ligouri, St. Alphonsus de 61-62 de fide teaches
13. McAuliffe, Clarence 67 cath. doctrine comm. cert. teaching
14. Merkelbach, Benedictus H. 71 certain certain
15. Noldin, H. 74 teaches teaches
16. Ott, Ludwig 77 fidei proxima fidei proxima
17. Pohle, Joseph 81 cath. doctrine cert. doctrine
18. Prümmer, Dominicus M. 89 de fide constant doctrine
19. Regatillo, Eduardus F. 91, 96 de fide teaches
20. Sabetti, Aloysius 98 teaches teaches
21. Sola, Franciscus 102 fidei proxima theol. certain
22. Tanquerey, Adolphus 107,111 certain certain
23. Zalba, Marcellino 114 teaches teaches
24. Zubizarreta, Valentinus 118 teaches teaches
25. Bellarmine, St. Robert 120 teaches teaches

Conclusion

1. All twenty-five theologians teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and none reject the teaching, so both doctrines are held by common consent.
2. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as theologically certain.
3. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as Catholic doctrine.
4. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as de fide (of the faith).

SFD

 

[Miles_Mariae]

1. All twenty-five theologians teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and none reject the teaching, so both doctrines are held by common consent.

Common consent… of these 25 theologians. Surely there are more in the world? How do these data prove that the rest of them also hold this by common consent?

 

[SFD]

Common consent… of these 25 theologians. Surely there are more in the world? How do these data prove that the rest of them also hold this by common consent?

Yes there are plenty more…but the point is that it is common teaching in all the theological schools for the last 500 years…ask GerardP to find a theologian who does not teach BOD/BOB. They all do.

If I gave you 100 examples you could say the same thing…but it’s common teaching…and Fr. Feeney did not deny BOD/BOB either. Maybe GerardP has evidence that he did…we’ll see.

SFD

 

[Miles_Mariae]

If I gave you 100 examples you could say the same thing…but it’s common teaching…
SFD

This is entirely true. And logically, you would be unable to disagree with me, because induction does not produce a demonstrable result. This is why I find “moral unanimity of theologians” to be so vague.

On that note, could you point me to evidence form the Church that moral unanimity of theologians is to be believed on pain of mortal sin? It does not seem appropriate to justify this claim by the ideas of theologians, since that would equate to saying that:

Theologians say that we must hold the beliefs that they teach, therefore we must hold the belief that we must hold the beliefs that they teach. Circular, I’m sure you will agree.

 

[mgrfin]

The point is that the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are given AT A MINIMUM the theological note of theologically certain.

SFD

The list is quite a walk down 4th Theo. You didn’t mention Wapelhorst.

You also didn’t mention St. Thomas Aquinas:

Treating the question whether a man can be saved without Baptism, St. Thomas allows there where actual Baptism is absent owing to accidental circumstances, the desire proceeding from ‘faith working through charity’ will in God’s Providence inwardly sanctify him.

But where you have absence of actual Baptism and a culpable absence of the desire for Baptism, “those who are not baptised under such conditions cannot be saved, because neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone comes salvation”. (III, Q 68, art. a).

He emphasizes the same truth when speaking of men who are sinners in the sense that they will to sin and purpose to remain in sin. These, he says, are not properly disposed to receive baptism: “For all of you who were baptised into Christ have put on Christ”; now as long as a man has the will to sin, he cannot be united to Christ: “for that hath justness in common with lawlessness”. 2 Cor VI 14.

Having said that, may I ask how many of the 25 theologians cited taught about Limbo?

These ‘certain’ notes, and even ‘de fide’ notes to me are suspicious, since they are subject to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff, or of the community of bishops with the Vicar of Christ, as in Vatican I and Vatican II.

peace.

 

[SFD]

SFD:

If I gave you 100 examples you could say the same thing…but it’s common teaching…
SFD

This is entirely true. And logically, you would be unable to disagree with me, because induction does not produce a demonstrable result. This is why I find “moral unanimity of theologians” to be so vague.

Miles Mariae,

No. I believe this is incorrect. I think you are saying we cannot be metaphyically certain…therefore you think there is no certainty at all. We can be morally certain however. This is a moral question … a question of human acts … and therefore we speak of “morally” unanimious.

How many dissidents and of what weight does it take to eliminate moral unaniminity? In the case of a beard, we cannot say which day it comes into being. But we can say when it isn’t there, and we can say when it is – and if we’re sufficiently fuzzy-minded, or have nothing worthwhile to do, we can debate the line-ball cases. But the truth is that men of prudence will agree on nine-tenths of cases off the bat, and they will agree on nine-tenths of the remainder after conferring a little.

Now, the above deals only with moral certainty…which you appear to be discounting. And remember that there really aren’t any “dissidents” teaching the opposite…so it never really enters into the question.

In the case of “common teaching” of theologians, we have the teaching of Pius IX in Tuas Libenter.

“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), Denz. 1684.

On that note, could you point me to evidence form the Church that moral unanimity of theologians is to be believed on pain of mortal sin?

It is taught by Pope Pius IX as quoted above. Why do you think his teaching here may not apply to you?

It does not seem appropriate to justify this claim by the ideas of theologians, since that would equate to saying that:

Theologians say that we must hold the beliefs that they teach, therefore we must hold the belief that we must hold the beliefs that they teach. Circular, I’m sure you will agree.

No, Pope Pius IX teaches us to hold these beliefs, taught in common consent by the Church’s theologians, and those are the doctrines “so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure”

Pope Pius IX is referring to the theological censure attached to the classification “note”. Remember too, that those teachings that are “probable” carry no censure. The Pope was not referring to those doctrines in his teaching.

SFD

 

[SFD]

The list is quite a walk down 4th Theo. You didn’t mention Wapelhorst.

Well, then why don’t you mention him … btw, the list came from the books that the author (of the article I quoted) had in his possession…are you just “name dropping” here mgrfin?

mgrfin:

You also didn’t mention St. Thomas Aquinas:

I mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas in post #185.

Treating the question whether a man can be saved without Baptism, St. Thomas allows there where actual Baptism is absent owing to accidental circumstances, the desire proceeding from ‘faith working through charity’ will in God’s Providence inwardly sanctify him.

But where you have absence of actual Baptism and a culpable absence of the desire for Baptism, “those who are not baptised under such conditions cannot be saved, because neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone comes salvation”. (III, Q 68, art. a).

He emphasizes the same truth when speaking of men who are sinners in the sense that they will to sin and purpose to remain in sin. These, he says, are not properly disposed to receive baptism: “For all of you who were baptised into Christ have put on Christ”; now as long as a man has the will to sin, he cannot be united to Christ: “for that hath justness in common with lawlessness”. 2 Cor VI 14.

Yes.

Having said that, may I ask how many of the 25 theologians cited taught about Limbo?

Why don’t you look it up for us, mgrfin…and don’t forget to include Wapelhorst.

mgrfin:

These ‘certain’ notes, and even ‘de fide’ notes to me are suspicious, since they are subject to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff, or of the community of bishops with the Vicar of Christ, as in Vatican I and Vatican II.

The list I gave you was from, On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations. That would include the Holy Office.

I can show you similar tabulations from taken from *Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. I *(I. Salaverri S.J.) p.810. … or also, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. III (G. Van Noort) p. 290, which is a tabulation from is the Bull “Auctorem Fidei” of Pius VI condemning the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia [1794] (Cf. Denz. 1501 ff.)

But I’m sure you can just look these up for yourself.

SFD

 

[Miles_Mariae]

No, Pope Pius IX teaches us to hold these beliefs, taught in common consent by the Church’s theologians, and those are the doctrines “so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure”

Pope Pius IX is referring to the theological censure attached to the classification “note”. Remember too, that those teachings that are “probable” carry no censure. The Pope was not referring to those doctrines in his teaching.

SFD

I think I am gaining a better understanding. However, I would like to ask whether you believe Pope Pius IX was teaching ex cathedra in Tuas Libenter. If not, then again there is no reason to believe that disagreeing with theologians is mortal sin, except from what theologians (ones of whom we should have high regard, no doubt) tell us. This runs into circularity once more. Would it be correct to guess, then, that you believe Pope Pius IX was speaking ex cathedra here?

I hope I do not seem like I am trying to be difficult. If I am to be convinced, I insist that I be truly persuaded, not halfway. I must ask your patience as I try to understand your position more fully.

 

[SFD]

I think I am gaining a better understanding. However, I would like to ask whether you believe Pope Pius IX was teaching ex cathedra in Tuas Libenter. If not, then again there is no reason to believe that disagreeing with theologians is mortal sin, except from what theologians (ones of whom we should have high regard, no doubt) tell us. This runs into circularity once more. Would it be correct to guess, then, that you believe Pope Pius IX was speaking ex cathedra here?

I hope I do not seem like I am trying to be difficult. If I am to be convinced, I insist that I be truly persuaded, not halfway. I must ask your patience as I try to understand your position more fully.

Miles Mariae,

No problems…I understand that you’re just trying to understand. This might help…again from the article I quoted earlier:

III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).

A. General Principle.

· “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. (Doc C)

B. You must therefore adhere to the following:

1. Doctrinal decisions of Vatican Congregations (e.g., the Holy Office)
2. Forms of doctrine held as:

a. Theological truths and conclusions.

b. So certain that opposition merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”

IV. You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:

A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of our faith. (condemned by Pius VI)

· “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,’ heretical.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ 1501. (Doc D)

B. Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (condemned by Pius IX).

· “And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn: and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church…”

**“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. (Doc E)

**C. Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (condemned by Pius XII).

· “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), Denz. 2313. (Doc F)**

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

All of those who made up the ‘common teaching’ in the Church on Limbo were wrong.

The Vicar of Christ does not need seminary professors to define what is and what is not a doctrine of faith.

Innocentius Wapelhorst, O.F.M, wrote books on the Liturgy, pre-Vat2. He had more sense than to issue theological notes. Just testing, and, as I thought, you don’t know what you are talking about. He wouldn’t have had anything to say about Limbo.

BTW, I thought your list of authorities were books you had in your library. You mean you are just quoting a list from someone else’s book. How dishonest!

Theological notes don’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to a General Council like Vatican2. Yes, Vatican2.

peace

 

[SFD]

All of those who made up the ‘common teaching’ in the Church on Limbo were wrong.

We weren’t discussing Limbo…but I invited you to inform us on it.

mgrfin:

The Vicar of Christ does not need seminary professors to define what is and what is not a doctrine of faith.

Are you serious? The Pope certainly does consult theologians.

mgrfin:

Innocentius Wapelhorst, O.F.M, wrote books on the Liturgy, pre-Vat2. He had more sense than to issue theological notes. Just testing, and, as I thought, you don’t know what you are talking about. He wouldn’t have had anything to say about Limbo.

You brought up both Limbo and Wapelhorst. I don’t know who he is…but I see now that he was a liturgist. I thought were were speaking of Dogmatic and Moral Theologians anyway. St. Alphonsus gave Baptism of Desire the “note” de fide…did he lack “sense” in your opinion? Also, is Wapelhorst a Doctor of the Church?

mgrfin:

BTW, I thought your list of authorities were books you had in your library. You mean you are just quoting a list from someone else’s book. How dishonest!

I quoted the article and the author of the article in post #186.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3273839&postcount=186

You may apologise at any time for your false accusation of dishonesty.

mgrfin:

Theological notes don’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to a General Council like Vatican2. Yes, Vatican2.

It’s not clear what you mean here…but it sounds like you deny the teaching of Pius IX as well.

“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.

Did the above not apply at Vatican II? If so, why?

Btw, this group of European theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II were opponents of traditional scholastic theology. They had been censured or silenced by Church authority prior to Vatican II. Examples: Teilhard de Chardin, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx, and so on…

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

opponents

of traditional scholastic theology. They had been censured or silenced by Church authority prior to Vatican II. Examples: Teilhard de Chardin, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx, and so on…

SFD

I certainly referrred to the Vicar of Christ on earth. I most certainly do not oppose any statement of Pio Nono.

Quote from my post #190
These ‘certain’ notes, and even ‘de fide’ notes to me are suspicious, since they are subject to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff, or of the community of bishops with the Vicar of Christ, as in Vatican I and Vatican II.
Unquote

So, Vatican 2 due to a liberal plot of some theologians? John XXIII was forced to hold a General Council? And its determinations were to comfound your right-wing, conservative theologians? Please, the Church needed air, to open up the windows, and it did. The conservative, right wing theologians lost their way, unfortunately.

Vatican 2 was not a mistake.

Who needs to apologize now?

As for Limbo, you are free to believe in it or not believe in it. It is no longer the ‘common’ teaching of the Church as taught by theologians. “Notes:” are just points of reference… My conscience is my primary ‘theological note’. The Holy Father, or he with the Council of bishops is free to go against the whole body of seminary professors if he so desires. When he intends to define, ex cathedra, they must back up to listen to his teaching, and the theological note we then attach to his statement, could be ‘de fide definita’.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

de fide

…did he lack “sense” in your opinion? Also, is Wapelhorst a Doctor of the Church?

SFD

You have gone completely mad!

John Courtney Murray was a ‘doctor’ at Vatican 2, and mostly responsible for “Dignitatis Humanae”.

Cardinal Congar was a theologian to Pius XII, and John Paul II

Cardinal Lubac was one of the most influential theologians of the 20th Century.

Scillebeeckx? Are you completely crazy? Where are you getting this stuff. He is one of the greatest minds in the Church, certainly in my lifetime.

You should withdraw from this site for spreading such falsehoods.

Where did you read that these great theological lights were in any way condemned by the Holy See?

Check your sources again, and now it is up to you to apologize for trying to ruin the reputations of these great minds.

peace

 

[stmaria]

You have gone completely mad!

John Courtney Murray was a ‘doctor’ at Vatican 2, and mostly responsible for “Dignitatis Humanae”.

Cardinal Congar was a theologian to Pius XII, and John Paul II

Cardinal Lubac was one of the most influential theologians of the 20th Century.

Scillebeeckx? Are you completely crazy? Where are you getting this stuff. He is one of the greatest minds in the Church, certainly in my lifetime.

You should withdraw from this site for spreading such falsehoods.

Where did you read that these great theological lights were in any way condemned by the Holy See?

Check your sources again, and now it is up to you to apologize for trying to ruin the reputations of these great minds.

peace

I am quite certain that SFD is correct. All of the above were banned by Pius XII from teaching.
Schillebeeckx is a favorite of yours?
"During the Second Vatican Council, Schillebeeckx’s articles influenced some of the major proposals for constitutions, articles which were distributed to all participants. In this way his influence was far greater than that of a formal peritus, a status the Dutch bishops had not granted to him. In 1965, together with Chenu, Cardinal Congar, Karl Rahner, and Hans Küng he founded the new theological journal Concilium, which promoted reformist thought.

Schillebeeckx’s books on Jesus gained a wide readership. His orthodoxy was called into question by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and he had to go to Rome to explain his views. Schillebeeckx was accused of denying the resurrection of Christ as an objective fact of faith."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Schillebeeckx

What about Curran and Kung? Your favorites also?