Roser

"I never appeared so worthy of praise before My Father as when I hung in agony on the cross... praise is precious in My eyes when, with thy heart, words, and works, thou dost praise me as fervently in sorrow as in joy, in adversity as in prosperity; then thou thinkest of Me"

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Yeah

@CathRoser @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Did the Gallicans who denied papal infallibility pre-Vatican I lose all faith, whenever they denied something that the pope had defined?

When you leave the Faith for your so-called “evangelical religion,” you don't just abandon the doctrine of Justification—you abandon Sacred Scripture, Purgatory, Saintly Invocation, Relics, the Sacraments, Tradition, the BVM, and her most precious Son, all of which were practiced and believed for millennia by the holiest of Saints.

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan If a conscious advertence of the rejected proposition as revealed were necessary for formal heresy then formal heresy could never be committed nor would apply to any heresiarch, whether Arius, Nestorius, Socinius, etc.

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan But again it’s the principle that one formally commits heresy who pertinaciously dissents from some proposition which is objectively proposed as a divinely revealed truth by a rule of faith irrespective of their subjective estimation or judgement of such a proposition as revealed

@JohnTzimiskes97 Not to mention that for one to even frame it in such a way indicates a lack of faithful deference and conformity to the Church's solemn pronouncements her recognition as a rule of faith

The persecution of the Spirituali, nor the Condemnations of Baius, nor the magisterium disagreeing with Saint Augustine on some niche soteriological issues, are terrible reasons actually to leave a church with a high motive of credibility.

Still haven't gotten over Dogma?

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Just because some proposition is contended or subjectively esteemed as false does not disqualify them from objectively dissenting from it Wasn’t that decree not actually approved or something?

@CathRoser @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Okay, what about things that people disagree whether something has been revealed? E.g. should adherents of the council of Basel in the 16th century have considered people who denied the immaculate conception, while knowing that Basel defined it, to lack faith?

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Only if it is pertinacious

@CathRoser @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan But surely there are plenty of pious papists who deny some dogma or another because they did not know it to have been revealed as such. Would you say that they lack faith?

@DrInquisitivus @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan Only presuming a laxist understanding of ignorance in conscience promoted by people like TD Barrett lol. If that were granted there could be no possible heresy at all because of a confused notion of what the formal object of an act is

@CathRoser @JesusDiedFor_Me @ScholasticsFan This only makes sense if we're talking about someone rejecting that which they think is divinely revealed. There'd be no reason for that effect when someone dissents from something divinely revealed because they don't realize that it was such.

@dissolution1806 @kennhistoria @AmericanReform_ His diary is a mine of very unsubtle admissions

@kennhistoria @AmericanReform_ Speaking of De Lubac, in the edition of Congar's diary I was reading, he is cited with a quote of him recalling that Congar complained that, "talk of religious experience as the basis of doctrine" was banned in Rome x.com/dissolution180…

The Phrase "fullness of truth" which is so commonly used to refer to the Church and its teachings today is found in Congar's 1939 work "Divided Christendom"; refers to the new "ecumenical Church".

@JesusDiedFor_Me @DrInquisitivus @ScholasticsFan Read Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos

@CathRoser @DrInquisitivus @ScholasticsFan Elaborate please! Specially when any Protestant would claim to have a supernatural faith and love for God. How do I explain what we mean without sounding insane? Because they do have “warm feelings” for Jesus, whom they assent to be God based on the authority of God revealing.

@DrInquisitivus @ScholasticsFan Catholics must believe that

@ScholasticsFan Are you suggesting that Protestants don't believe in Jesus?

@BessyNic do it ‼️

I will make a YouTube channel one day

@DonkeyoftheWest Character limit and that’s why I have the picture of him there

@CathRoser If that was a quote from Monsignor Gherardini you should note that

"If one wishes to blame the post-council alone let it be done—it is not devoid of faults; but one ought not forget that it is the natural son of the Council, and that it has drawn those principles from it which, exasperating them, it has then based its most devastating contents"

@kadaiot @Dogmaticist Yeah probabiliorism just seems way more intuitive to me (at least from how Concina characterizes it) Also the way he speaks of probabilists’ view of invincible ignorant definitely makes me averse to them

@CathRoser @Dogmaticist i mean u can be a probabilist and not hold to moral laxism, alongside this probabilism would only assume probable follow a probable opinion that a benign act is lawful (even if the opposite opinion is more probable) i myself am a probabiliorist tho given immodest credences

🔗Medium article of Fr. Daniele Concina O.P. on the Fewness of the Elect 🔽

@dissolution1806 @irumyuui1 Specifically w/ Congar there can be a pretty easy inference of the heterogenous evolution of dogma from his views on religious liberty

@dissolution1806 @irumyuui1 Congar was one of the worst imo and had a pretty open vitriol towards previous teaching in his diary of the council The mutability of dogmatic notions isn't exclusive to those authors and it pretty much undergirds their entire movement. Also Ratzinger championing it as pope

This is a direct misquote of what you posted an SS of. It says: "If it (Vatican II) should be opposed to Vatican I, then Vatican I—and this was not least the intention of Vatican II—would have to be supplemented and corrected in the light of the gospel." If I say, "If the moon is made of cheese, then the moon is tasty", I didn't say that the moon is tasty. This is called the "Frege-point", that you can express a proposition in a conditional statement without asserting it. As for the clarification, "...—and this was not least the interpretation of Vatican II..." can either be taken to apply to the conditional as a whole or just the consequent. If we read what follows, it is obvious what is meant. "...are not adequate to describe..." means insufficient. Because "inadequate" or "not adequate" means "not enough" in the English language (you can look it up if you don't believe me). So, either you interpret the clarification as specifying that the intention of Vatican II was to supplement and correct Vatican I (applying to the consequent) or as saying that the intention of Vatican II was to supplement Vatican I's inadequacies and correct those who oppose it to Vatican I (applying to the whole conditional statement). If what was meant was the former, you would expect what follows to clarify that Vatican I is opposed to Vatican II in this one regard, of being false in some respects, and inadequate in others. If what was meant is the latter, you would expect that what follows doesn't do that. What follows is actually him just saying that "in any case" (regardless of whether Vatican I is opposed to Vatican II), Vatican I's juridical language is insufficient in describing the Pope in respects that Vatican II is not, not him saying that Vatican I is incorrect because it is opposed to Vatican II.

@kadaiot @Dogmaticist It seems like an obvious philosophical sin to grant some proposition of the malice of an act to be more probable, and thus approximate to the truth, and simultaneously grant that it would be licit to do

@CathRoser @Dogmaticist what’s the problem

@dissolution1806 @irumyuui1 You don’t think that (e.g.) the mutability of dogmatic notions, which is a pretty ubiquitous principle among all their authors, is implicitly modernist?

@irumyuui1 I am not trying to defend Roser or his original claim, as I said in a reply to my original QT, i just wanted to share. Anyways love you nigga

@peterswindal Laxist priests send innumerable souls to hell

Can priests stop acting like this, my goodness. It is ridiculous.