Neo-conservatives

[amarkich]

As long as you are talking about the correct use of NFP, as far as I know about that, it is morally acceptable (even though I still think it is better to use the [i]real[/i] natural means, breast feeding). Also, it depends what "Feeneyism" means because the Church has not taught [i]De Fide [/i]anything about "Baptisms" of desire and blood, so one can certainly ignore the speculative theology of the matter and not only remain in good standing with the Church but also remain believing all that the Church teaches and only what the Church teaches. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ignore." A catholic certainly cannot speak out against the teachings, especially in a public manner. Honestly, I think the only thing one can do is - if one has a problem with the teaching - write the bishop or Rome for further clarification on the matter - and, ultimately, to submit humbly both mind and will to the teachings. It doesn't have to be your favorite thing ever, but you certainly cannot fight the teaching - even through silence.

[Apotheoun]

The constant desire today to put labels on people in the Church is a form of sectarianism, and any kind of sectarian spirit is contrary to the Catholic faith, and should avoided.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Socrates]

[quote]Neo-conservatives will usually assert that adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, and all the immoral acts condemned by the Church and Scripture are, in fact, unacceptable, but they balk at any statement contrary to current societal practice, e.g., women can wear pants, women can work and deserve equal pay as men, the woman's place is not in the home, women do not have to cover their heads in church, men and women are essentially equal in all respects--women have no greater dignity than men and men have no greater duty or "privilege" of working rather than staying home, as a traditional wife does--etc, etc, etc. This is the essence of a neo-conservative--one who embraces Modernism under the pretext of societal norms but does not fully accept it in religion (only concerning women covering their heads and representing offices of the Church, e.g., Lector). The term quasi-Modernist should be synonymous with neo-conservative.[/quote]

This is a confusing and confused statement. Neocons assert that all the immoral acts condemned by Church and Scripture are unnaccepatable but balk at any statement contrary to current societal practice?
Acceptance of many forms of immorality - homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc., etc. is part of current societal practice, unfortunately.

The difference is that these immoral are defined clearly by the Church as mortal sins, while such things as women wearing pants are not.
Also Modernism is a specific heresy, and should not be thrown around as a label to those who do not agree with one's personal opinions.

[amarkich]

Jeff, by "ignore" I mean that faithful Catholics can disregard speculative theology taught by theologians if it is not taught [i]De Fide [/i]by the Church. The same could be said of Limbo, except Limbo does not in any way seem to contradict [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]statements by the Church whereas the other Baptisms at least have this impression. Limbo also compliments other Catholic dogmas in a logical way, but Limbo is still not a De Fide teaching of the Church and is not necessary for salvation (the same is true for multiple Baptisms). I would not say that someone could "ignore" necessarily, the doctrine of Limbo, but I still know that it does not have to be held for salvation and in order to be in full communion with the Church. I could write the local Ordinary, asking whether or not it is an Article of Faith to believe in multiple Baptisms, and I know he would say that it is not, but this is probably not true of all Bishops, so that process might not always work. The Pope does not have time to reply to all of his letters, and he would agree that it is not [i]De Fide[/i]. Still, a Pope could claim that it is but that does not make it so unless it is actually spoken [i]Ex Cathedra [/i](he cannot just say that it is Ex Cathedra, without making the actual statement in an infallible manner).

Socrates, Modernism has many aspects and the heresy itself is not purely theological (even though this is the most prominent form under the title). The idea that Catholics can function perfectly in all American societal norms is ridiculous. This may have been true at one time in history (I am not even sure if that can be said if you include political beliefs as "societal norms" because then it would be impossible to be both an American and a Catholic), but it is certainly not true today. Even if one were to promote some sense of 'modesty' which could be considered moderately counter-cultural, the fact is that almost all neo-conservatives do not depart from societal norms or accepted societal procedures is certainly not fulfilling Our Lord's command to reject the world and follow Him. By the way, as I said, neo-conservatives are against immorality but not society, not the world. They do not reject the world at all. They accept the world and even embrace societal norms. As I said, excluding morality, they completely adhere to Modernist American societal norms of "equality", "diversity", and "tolerance" as well as the feminism which has permeated our culture and the world.

Edited August 13, 2004 by amarkich

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:24 PM'] Also, it depends what "Feeneyism" means because the Church has not taught [i]De Fide [/i]anything about "Baptisms" of desire and blood, so one can certainly ignore the speculative theology of the matter and not only remain in good standing with the Church but also remain believing all that the Church teaches and only what the Church teaches. [/quote]
What about:
[quote]Council of Trent, Session Six
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, [b]or the desire thereof[/b], as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.[/quote]

[amarkich]

That statement does not constitute something being taught [i]De Fide [/i]by the Church. While some would like to make the argument: 1) that the negative clause somehow indicates that the opposite is actually true, i.e., that because the Council says that desire is a necessary part of sanctification that it therefore indicates that the desire itself actually achieves the sanctification in Baptism and 2) that the commentary in an Ecumenical Council constitues as an infallible statement. I do not believe that either of these two things are true (I will have to ask my Pastor or consult some proper text concerning the second one). Also, a statement cannot be made an Article of Faith without being explicitly commanded and taught, i.e., "We declare, We define, We say (something)". This is not true of multiple Baptisms, so it is certainly not an Article of Faith, even if someone thought that both premise 1 and 2 above were true. I am pretty sure that 2 cannot be true (even if 1 were, which I do not think it is). In any event, as I said, something must be officially declared (either in a Papal Bull specifically or in a decree, a canon, of an Ecumenical Council) to be [i]De Fide[/i]. God bless.

Edit: It would seem that premise 1 is discredited by the quote cited there in the Council, which is specifically referenced in one of the Canon II on Baptism: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, twists, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Both of these sources of the Council cite that verse from Scripture, and Canon II declares that one who holds water to be unnecessary for Baptism "twists the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ into a metaphor". What are "desire" and "blood" if not the ends of metaphor spoken of by Our Lord?

Edited August 13, 2004 by amarkich

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

But it uses to word "or". The laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof. That's what I'm refering to.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 07:09 PM']That statement does not constitute something being taught [i]De Fide [/i]by the Church. While some would like to make the argument: 1) that the negative clause somehow indicates that the opposite is actually true, i.e., that because the Council says that desire is a necessary part of sanctification that it therefore indicates that the desire itself actually achieves the sanctification in Baptism and 2) that the commentary in an Ecumenical Council constitues as an infallible statement. I do not believe that either of these two things are true (I will have to ask my Pastor or consult some proper text concerning the second one). Also, a statement cannot be made an Article of Faith without being explicitly commanded and taught, i.e., "We declare, We define, We say (something)". This is not true of multiple Baptisms, so it is certainly not an Article of Faith, even if someone thought that both premise 1 and 2 above were true. I am pretty sure that 2 cannot be true (even if 1 were, which I do not think it is). In any event, as I said, something must be officially declared (either in a Papal Bull specifically or in a decree, a canon, of an Ecumenical Council) to be [i]De Fide[/i]. God bless.[/quote]
For a doctrine to be infallibly taught, it must be defined, taught, or proclaimed through a defining act of the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium, or the through a non-defining act of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium; and so, there is no requirement that either a Pope or an Ecumenical Council use any [i]formula[/i], or specific mode of speech, in order to teach a doctrine infallibly. In other words, the Pope does not have to say, "We declare, We define, We say, etc.," in order for him to bind the Church to a specific doctrinal proposition. This idea, i.e., that the Pope must use some standardized [i]formula[/i] in order to define a doctrine of the faith, was condemned at Vatican 1 in the [i]Official Relatio[/i] delivered by Bishop Gasser. In response to the small number of bishops who wanted to impose some kind of [i]formula of definition[/i] upon the Pope (i.e., some kind of stylized way in indicating that the Pontiff was speaking infallibly), Bishop Gasser said the following, "But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. [i]Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments[/i]?" In addition, the idea that some kind of stylistic or verbal [i]formula[/i] must be used in order to indicate that something has been infallibly taught, would end up in a denial of the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because it specifically teaches through what are called non-defining acts, and thus, there is no definition properly socalled issued by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium when it teaches a doctrine infallibly. The attitude of some, who wish to limit the infallible teaching power of the Magisterium, must resisted at all costs.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 12 2004, 07:38 PM'] But it uses to word "or". The laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof. That's what I'm refering to. [/quote]
The Dude,

You are correct. It is a solemnly defined dogma, defined by the Fathers of the Council of Trent, that the desire for baptism, although not itself a sacrament, has the same effect as the Sacrament of Baptism.

God bless,
Todd

[amarkich]

I understand that, but a statement which negates something does not automatically assert the opposite. "If you are blind, you cannot function without the help of another person or of a walking dog." This statement does not mean 1) that another person can automatically help you to function; it simply states that without another person, there is absolutely no way to function (this is all hypothetical, concerning blind people) and 2) that a walking dog automatically causes a person to function. A sentence making a negative statement toward one thing does not, by necessity, assert that the contrary, opposite (positive) statement is true. In any event, certainly premise 2 is enough of a problem (as well as the fact that the Church does not make decrees of what must be believed by faithful Catholics by making a negative statement). In any event, as I said, 1) the negative statements does not somehow implicate that the opposite, positive statement is true, 2) commentary in Ecumenical Councils does not enjoy infallibility, only specific decrees do (at least to my knowledge; this needs to be clarified still), and 3) the Church does not give [i]De Fide [/i]statements except by explicit decree and command. God bless.

[amarkich]

Apotheon, see my last post. It is nowhere "defined" by Trent. In fact, the Canons on Baptism negate the idea, calling such a proposition "twisting Our Lord Jesus Christ's words into a metaphor." As I said above, the three facts remain: 1) a negative statement does not automatically implicate the opposite, positive statement as true, 2) the commentary is not infallible, and 3) an Article of Faith must be explicitly taught in [i]some[/i] infallible document (not just the ordinary teaching). The only beliefs required of Catholics and officially taught by the Church are the Church's Articles of Faith. Multiple Baptisms are not included in this category.

[amarkich]

Just to add, I do not wish to limit the Church's authority and power in any way. In fact, I actually believe what the Church teaches, namely that it is necessary not only to be baptized and to be a Catholic, but it is also necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (Pope Boniface VIII, [i]Unam Sanctam[/i]).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:03 PM'] Apotheon, see my last post. It is nowhere "defined" by Trent. In fact, the Canons on Baptism negate the idea, calling such a proposition "twisting Our Lord Jesus Christ's words into a metaphor." As I said above, the three facts remain: 1) a negative statement does not automatically implicate the opposite, positive statement as true, 2) the commentary is not infallible, and 3) an Article of Faith must be explicitly taught in [i]some[/i] infallible document (not just the ordinary teaching). The only beliefs required of Catholics and officially taught by the Church are the Church's Articles of Faith. Multiple Baptisms are not included in this category. [/quote]
I totally, completely, and utterly, disagree with you on this, the entire [u]Decree on Justification[/u] issued by the Fathers of Trent, is dogma, and no one may dissent from anything contained either within the body of the Decree itself, or from the canons appended to it.

God bless,
Todd

[amarkich]

Like I said, I have to check with my Pastor or a proper text on the matter. I cannot just take the word or opinion of an un-authoritative source. In any event, premise 1 still holds as does 3 (even if you are correct). I think the biggest issue is with premise 1. Without being able to prove that a negative automatically indicates the opposite positive, it is impossible to claim that Trent taught any kind of "Baptism" of desire. God bless.