Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

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?

Charles Curran is a special case. He strongly believes in intellectual freedom in Catholicism, and never veers from ‘de fide definita’ statements of the Church. On others, he has expressed his own judgments.

I have no problems with Kung, Schillebeeckx, Congar, deChardin, duLabac.

Conservative catholics in the Vatican have no problem attacking Jesuits like Murray, duLabac, Thomas Reese (editor of ‘America’) because as Jesuits they take a special vow of obedience to the Holy Father, and they are prime targets, who will yield, not on intellectual grounds, but because of their vow.

Curran was a peritus at Vat 2. So was Murray. There’s a lot of jealousy among intellectuals, yes, even Roman Catholic priests.

The Catholic Church has done well intellectually in the 20th Century, and Vatican 2 speaks to that.

We should always be allowed to question, for that is what we do as humans. In the end, obedience to the Holy Father is what matters, after all the discussions have been heard.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3280323]Charles Curran is a special case. He strongly believes in intellectual freedom in Catholicism, and never veers from ‘de fide definita’ statements of the Church. On others, he has expressed his own judgments.

Isn’t Curran considered to be a heretic?

I have no problems with Kung, Schillebeeckx, Congar, deChardin, duLabac.

Kung denies Papal Infallibility. Has spoken at conferences supporting women priests and favors birth control. You have no problem with him?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng

Curran was a peritus at Vat 2. So was Murray. There’s a lot of jealousy among intellectuals, yes, even Roman Catholic priests

.

As was Kung and Schillebeeckx. Isn’t that why traditionalists are wary of Vatican II?
]

 

[SFD]

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

Well, you oppose the teaching in Tuas Libenter.

mgrfin:

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

And your point is what? A truth that is “theologically certain” can of course be infallibily defined by the Church or the Pope…but are you saying it can be “defined” in contradiction to the “theologically certain” doctrine?

Do you agree with the Denzinger entry below?

Denz. 1800 (1954 edition)

The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed. For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and the wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding”[1]

[1] Instruction of St. Vincent of Lerin, n. 28 [ML 50, 668 (c. 23)].

mgrfin:

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?

Read Fr. Wiltgen’s book, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, A History of Vatican II. You are arguing with facts here mgrfin…and no man of tradition will think these dissident theologians were anything but revolutionaries.

mgrfin:

Please, the Church needed air, to open up the windows, and it did. The conservative, right wing theologians lost their way, unfortunately.

Read as the orthodox theologians who were not censured.

mgrfin:

Vatican 2 was not a mistake.

Oh…of course it wasn’t…it ushered in a “new springtime”…didn’t it?

mgrfin:

Who needs to apologize now?

Well, you still need to apologise for calling me dishonest.

SFD:

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…&postcount=186

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

mgrfin:

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’.

Can he define something that opposes a theologically certain doctrine? This defies even human reason…but you seem to have no issue with that.

SFD

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

Charles Curran is a special case. He strongly believes in intellectual freedom in Catholicism, and never veers from ‘de fide definita’ statements of the Church. On others, he has expressed his own judgments.

“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.

Where does that put Curran?

SFD

 

[GerardP]

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

I won’t get into the lack of certitude about the theological note formulation. If it’s “theologically certain” it’s not “de fide.” It can’t be both at the same time.

So, the whole grading system is flawed.

It’s actually just a power grab (saints or not, good intentions or not) for extending their own authority and undermining the Magisterium of the Church.

But from your own citation:

“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.”

By the way, Fr. Cekada is not exactly a clear thinker.

 

[mgrfin]

stmaria;:
Fr. Curran, a heretic? No. Don’t believe everything you read from the radical right. He might be controversial, and he believes in the legitimacy of dissent within the Catholic Church. However, Charles is committed to the Catholic Church.

He was stripped of his right to teach as a Catholic theologian, but as far as I know, he is still a priest on leave from the Rochester diocese to teach. He remains a loyal dissident. Read his biography, if you don’t believe me.

Hans Kung is a priest in good standing. He just doesn’t teach dogmatic theology. He is an elderly man now, but still teaches Ecumenical theology in Switzerland. He is very friendly with Benedict XVI, who loves to dine with him from time to time.

Why Traditionalists are wary of Vatican 2? Maybe they are the problem. Where are all the great minds within the Church, learned theologians we love to read? There are almost none left. Freedom of thought has been crushed, and men of intellect in the Church are afraid to speak. Our great sources of theological thought is found on ETWN? Really?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

GerardP;QUOTE:

Theological notes is a non-issue.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Where does that put Curran?

SFD

Quanta Cura?

Don’t you have anything written since 1970, let alone 1870?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Cekada is from my old stomping grounds of Long Island.

He is a right wing Traditionalist - one of those SEDEVACANTISTS. I think the whole crowd is over the edge.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Cekada is from my old stomping grounds of Long Island.

He is a right wing Traditionalist - one of those SEDEVACANTISTS. I think the whole crowd is over the edge.
I think they are close to heresy.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

He is a right wing Traditionalist - one of those SEDEVACANTISTS.

He was ordained by Archbishop Lefrebrve, who was excommunicated for illicitly consecrationing bishops without any authority from the Vatican.

I think the whole crowd is over the edge.

I’ll take Hans Kung anyday.

peace

 

[SFD]

I won’t get into the lack of certitude about the theological note formulation. If it’s “theologically certain” it’s not “de fide.” It can’t be both at the same time.

And no one is claiming that “theologically certain” IS “de fide.” But for some reason you are denying something that NO ONE has ever claimed! Why, Gerard? Is it that you have no valid or even reasonable rebuttal?

GerardP:

So, the whole grading system is flawed.

Why? Because you see something that isn’t there (If it’s “theologically certain” it’s not “de fide.” It can’t be both at the same time) and then call it an error? You’re not fooling anyone who is paying attention.

GerardP:

It’s actually just a power grab (saints or not, good intentions or not) for extending their own authority and undermining the Magisterium of the Church.

So Pope Pius IX was instituting a “power grab” for thaose German theologians he was correcting for NOT following “those 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.”?

GerardP:

But from your own citation:

“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.”

That remark is for Common or Certain doctrine NOT theologically certain doctrine:

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.

The point that all 25 theologians held these doctrines by common consent does not meant the note given is “common”.

Btw, have you found even one theologian who dissented from this teaching (other that mgrfin’s previously censured “heros” of theology)?

Even if we would (wrongly) assume that these teachings were just “common”…then what exactly would be your “proportionately grave reason” for dissenting?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject all teaching that is not “proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” … just like condemned proposition #22 in Quanta Cura:

“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.

GerardP:

By the way, Fr. Cekada is not exactly a clear thinker.

And I suppose you think you are?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Gerard, you can’t answer the below simply because IT CONDEMNS YOUR MISTAKEN IDEAS. That is clear.

“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.

“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.
Cardinal Manning:

"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

 

[mgrfin]

Does anyone know of any papal writings that talk about non Catholics being able to be get to heaven? I know Vatican II talks about this but I am looking for things written before Vatican II that specifically say people outside the Church have at least a chance of getting to heaven.

What is wrong with writings connected to Vatican 2 on this issue?

I am sure they are consistent with what has been written before.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t follow your reasoning. “Traditionalist”? Do you want something from the Council of Nicea?

What do you mean to say by “Traditionalist”.

Vatican I was 1870. Is that old enough for you?

If I gave you a statement from the Holy Office in 1901, is that old enough, or “Traditionalist” enough?

What are you implying? That we have statements from the Church which are from a particular stream, or just from the Church itself? The Church cannont be divided. The statements are either true or they are not true.

peace

 

[GerardP]

That remark is for Common or Certain doctrine NOT theologically certain doctrine:

Oh you just keep making it up as you go along. You don’t even bother to read your own posts.

Again from your own citation: (emphasis mine)

(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. **

I know it’s frustrating to you to be shown your error so bluntly but don’t insult people’s intelligence with such transparent falsehoods.

 

[mgrfin]

Are you saying that the Vatican II is in contradiction to the Council of Trent?

How can that be? How can the Holy Spirit be at Trent, and not in Vatican II?

peace

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
I won’t get into the lack of certitude about the theological note formulation. If it’s “theologically certain” it’s not “de fide.” It can’t be both at the same time.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. The subject is Baptism of Desire/Blood, It can’t be “theologically certain” and “de fide” at the same time.

You’ve claimed it was “de fida” by citing St. Alphonsus. Now, you think it’s “at least theologically certain.”

The “theological note” that you give supreme authority to is far far far from unanimously agreed upon. Your whole premise is shot.

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve got your conclusion and your scrambling around to support it.

But for some reason you are denying something that NO ONE has ever claimed!

False. As explained above. You didn’t comprehend the subject. Now you’re setting up a straw man.

Why, Gerard? Is it that you have no valid or even reasonable rebuttal?

I’ve provided numerous reasonable rebuttals. But your attempts to reframe the argument are simply your own avoidance of the main point. You place fallible authorities over infallible definitions.

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
So, the whole grading system is flawed.

I’m the one paying attention. Is Baptism of Desire “theologically certain” or is it “de fide?” You say both depending your who you want to believe in your list of theologians. But they don’t agree with you. Anyone who is not agreeing with the “de fide” grade is falling under the condemnations of the denial of that grade.

But the problem is, even if it’s “theologically certain” the very remarks you cited state that dissent is possible since it is possible that the theologians are wrong. Something you deny since you believe that theologians who disagree are in agreement, water that is necessary is also unnecessary, infallible definitions can be subject to fallible interpretors etc. etc.

 

[GerardP]

Are you saying that the Vatican II is in contradiction to the Council of Trent?

How can that be? How can the Holy Spirit be at Trent, and not in Vatican II?

peace

I’m saying that no interpretation of Vatican II can supercede the infallible definitions of Trent.

Any phrases in Vatican II about non-Catholics “in the plan of salvation” or having “means of salvation” must be understood that none of those religions are salvific and no one will be saved in them. To be saved one must be sacramentally incorporated into the Church by Baptism before death.

In other words, Vatican II can’t “undefine” Trent or add ambiguity to what has been defined.