Originally Posted by SFD
GerardP,
Well, I never mentioned St. Dismas. Neither did St. Alphonsus, for that matter.
No. That doesn’t even make sense. You posted a quote of St. Alphonsus that referred to the Institution of Baptism among other things. I pointed out that Baptism was not obligatory when it was instituted, however after the resurrection it was obligatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
I used it as an example to make a distinction between the institution of the sacrament of Baptism and the later date when Baptism was made obligatory. Many people reading your citation would fail to make that distinction and that’s why the erroneous example of St. Dismus to support Baptism of Desire would not be correct.
What distinction?
For the third time: “a distinction between the institution of the sacrament of Baptism and the later date when Baptism was made obligatory.”
Are you denying the moral unanimity of theologians who teach both “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood”?
Yes because there is no moral unanimity among theologians.
You are claiming that he read Trent incorrectly?
Yes. Trent does not say anyone is saved by Baptism of Desire. The phrase is not in any infallible definition. Quite the opposite.
Saints and Doctors of the Church are not infallible. Trent does not say what St. Alphonsus claims. He is mistaken. Fallible theologians (even saints) can make mistakes regarding infallible dogmas.
No, they are not infallible as individuals…but neither are you.
This is a cute tactic. I didn’t appeal to my own authority. I appeal to the Magisterium of the Church. You appeal to non-infallible theologians to define what the Church has already infallibly defined. You put the non-infallible above the infallible.
They are however, when they teach in moral unanimity, incapable of teaching error. As I understand it, the moral unanimity of theologians is not in itself granted the charism of “infallibility” but rather they are witnesses to the preaching of the Church, which means that if they all agree (morally unanimous) they cannot be wrong - not because they have some special charism but rather because, like the “Church believing”, if they could all be mistaken then that would mean that the magisterium had been mistaken. Any other position is a denial of reason.
What kind of twisted gobbledygook is that? If they are not infallible. They are fallible. Vatican I did not extend to theologian pinheads any charism.
Pius XII explicitly stated: “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. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure.”
Someone that you should read.
What authority does Scheeben hold? From what I know from reading his bio, he was not too clear in his teaching.
Was Pope Pius IX wrong as well?
No. Scheeben (if quoted correctly ) is wrong about Pius IX.
Here’s the pertinent quote:
"The very definition of a dogma must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Moreover, this is why
such dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable rule of faith."–Inter Gravissimas
Probably not. More likely you’ve done what Jimmy Akin did. Unconsciously, add to magisterial teaching in order to justify a liberal, heterodox position.
Gerard, do you think that every theologian from the sixteenth century until today mistranslated the Latin of the Council of Trent? That doesn’t even make sense. Translated into what? Do you think theology is done in English?
Now who’s introducing the red herring? How about if you deal with the facts and stop the “appeal to popularity” and “appeal to numbers” fallacy?
