Newman and “the Rambler Affair”

[wenceslav]

With the recent flurry of errors( i.e. see NovusOrdoWatch ComBox) relating to the denial of Apostolic Succession in our present time, or a redefinition of what Apostolic Succession means, I would like to mention the following example of John Henry Newman. Although I have great respect for Cardinal Newman (the people at WM Review have some wonderful work by Newman), he did have some troublesome moments as a Catholic stemming from his days as an Anglican.

As the Rambler (19th century British Catholic journal) article by Cd. Newman demonstrates, Newman believed that the entire body of bishops failed for 60 years during the Arian crisis. Newman’s ordinary and the Roman authorities wanted a retraction for this heretical statement, albeit discretely. To his credit, Newman “was always ready in obedience to competent authority to retract or explain”. See excerpt from W. Ward’s book below.

From the Rambler - July 1859, page 214 - article (Newman was the recently appointed editor of this Catholic journal) re: the Arian controversy of the 4th century:
URL: drive.google.com/file/d/1mRn6ghEOE6Fpo_E-Zt8GYIDqbb9_aEeL/view?usp=drivesdk

[Newman stated]

I. On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the “Ecclesia docens.” The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops ; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending ‘itself into nearly every corner of ‘the Catholic Church. The com- paratively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or were deceived.

From “The Life of John Henry Newman, Vo. II by Wilfrid Ward, pp. 165-166.
URL: drive.google.com/file/d/19pjQHr6QzCF5KWS1ktgk0vOjpCmf6eOM/view?usp=drivesdk

'He spoke of the Rambler. The article "On consulting the faithful" had been delated by the Bishop of Newport, for heresy. The passage he complained of was (he was quoting from memory) "that for sixty years, the Ecclesia docens was in suspension, and the faith was preserved by consensus fidelium." ‘Talbot said, speaking for himself, that "the passage, as it stood, was no doubt heretical." Still, out of consideration for Newman the Holy See would not condemn it, or call on him for an explanation. He did not know exactly what had been done, but he saw a letter of Father Newman to the Bishop of Birmingham in which he said that he hoped at any rate they would not send for him to Rome. So out of mercy (and I think Talbot said he had himself pleaded for him) the matter was dropped—only Newman knew from his Bishop that they wanted an explanation or retractation of that passage. Consequently he was under a cloud, and he felt it himself; for for three years he had not opened his mouth until he was called out by the "Apologia." Ambrose said warmly and more than once, it was a very cruel kindness. The Father felt keenly any impeachment of his faith—to touch him in that point was to touch the apple of his eye—but it would never hurt him in the least if he was told plainly if any exception was taken to his expressions or statements, and was always ready in obedience to competent authority to retract or explain, &c., &c.'

[Pacelli]

Great post, Wenceslav.  I'm going to move it from here to the Resource page, to keep it easy to find for future reference.  

[John Lewis]

wenceslav If you have a Disqus account it probably wouldn’t hurt to post this in the Novusordowatch combox.

[wenceslav]

This is a letter from Dr. (Fr.) John Gillow regarding the famous Rambler article by Newman. A little background- Dr. John Gillow was the rector and a Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Ushaw College (St. Cuthberts College), the Catholic seminary in County Durham, England.

John, I’m not sure posting this historical account in the NovusOrdoWatch ComBox would make any difference. As Pacelli said elsewhere, they “openly deny that they must adhere to the Catholic teaching as explained by the theologians who have all taught this in consensus.” For example (in the ComBox) in order to convince others that the manuals are supposedly all over the place wrt points of doctrine, a famous sede blogger has erroneously maintained that Ludwig Ott ( a major theologian before VII) wrote against Baptism of Desire in opposition to St. Alphonsus. That is absolutely false and a quick look at the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” - Ott’s famous manual - shows just how false that statement really is. A historical example means nothing to them and they will interpret this as “my interpretation”.

Back to the letter - and I am going to play devil’s advocate here. The bolded paragraph in Dr Gillow’s letter to Newman, below, maintains that it was easy “to show that, during the struggle with Arianism the ecclesia docens was most active in the exercise of its functions, and that the characteristics of truth and error were sufficiently visible and decided to make it impossible for men of good will, living at that time, to be misled as to which party was the Church of God,”.

That I believe is the difference between the Arian crisis and the present. There were bishops during the Arian struggle who were active as Teachers of the Truth i.e. Catholic doctrine and did not shirk their duty. By Faith, we know there must be a bishop(s) (and part of the Ecclesia docens) who remains Catholic in today’s crisis but except for Vigano, perhaps Schneider (who were consecrated in the New Rite), they are not active in opposing heresy and error. They remain hidden in their eparchies or dioceses barely making a whimper. I knew one such bishop in the Czech Republic who was the bishop of the Czech Greek Catholic exarchate. He personally hated the Novus Ordo but would just rule his eparchy not making a whimper against false ecumenism etc. He certainly would not have met Dr. Gillow’s criterion as being most active in the exercise of his functions as a member of the Ecclesia docens.

That is why many sedevacantists are falling over the cliff towards heresy. I obviously don’t agree with them but I certainly understand why they are wrongly sliding towards that direction. It seems only the “Traditional Sacramental Bishops” are actually meeting Dr. Gillow’s criteria-albeit accidentally and that’s why so many are willing to change the Church’s teaching to fit the present dilemma where the Traditional Sacramental bishops are now (erroneously) part of the Ecclesia docens. This is probably obvious to many on this forum.


URL: drive.google.com/file/d/1VzfqWk3k0twal3QfFjF9-GDyx-vdwf7h/view?usp=drivesdk

FROM JOHN GILLOW
St. Cuthberts College, Ushaw, Durham. Augt 28th 1859.
My dear Dr. Newman,

It is not without reluctance that I now write, but I feel called upon to make an explanation of something contained in my last letter which I now apprehend may have been understood in a sense which I did not mean and cannot approve. I do not remember the exact words which I used but I have no doubt of their intended meaning. What I said was to the effect that I was glad to find that on the infallibility of the Church there was no difference between us on any point of principle, and that I had always taught in conformity with your explanation, that infallibility has been given to the whole Church per modum unius.

To this you made reply that you were sure there could be no kind of difference between us on a matter of doctrine so plain and so important.

If however I am right in supposing that the principle by which you consider the Church as a whole to be infallible is reconcilable with the views developed in the Rambler's Article “On Consulting the faithful in matters of doctrine,” I fear that there must exist a material difference between us on an important point of principle.

Consistently with what I have been taught and have always believed and held as a matter pertaining to faith on the doctrine of the Church's infallibility, it is impossible that there could be ‘a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens,' or that 'the body of Bishops could fail in their confession of the faith.' By the body of Bishops I mean what the writer of the article means, viz. the Bishops who compose the Ecclesia docens, and who are supposed to fail wlien they undertake to exercise the functions of that capacity. Could such a suspense or failure occur on the part of the Ecclesia docens, the Church as a whole would not be infallible conformably to the sense which I intended when I said that the Church as a whole is infallible per modum unius.

As regards the Argument of the article it appears to me that it would not be difficult by arguing from the very facts adduced in proof of the suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens, and of the defection of its bishops, to show that, during the struggle with Arianism the ecclesia docens was most active in the exercise of its functions, and that the characteristics of truth and error were sufficiently visible and decided to make it impossible for men of good will, living at that time, to be misled as to which party was the Church of God, and which was its persecuting enemy, or to be unable to distinguish the true teaching of the Ecclesia docens from the confusion excited by its adversaries.

I cannot close this without noticing the last sentence of the article. Presuming that the writer regards the case there supposed to be something more than a mere possibility, I think it needful to observe that at no time has the Church wished, or acted as if she wished the faithful to be either ill instructed in their faith, or cold in devotion to its mysteries, or weak in zeal for their religion: nor can the Church by exacting ‘a fides implicita in her word' evince such a wish; for fides implicita contains no evil either in itself or in its tendencies: it is opposed neither to reason, nor learning, nor contemplation. A fides implicita in her word the Church does and must exact; it expresses not a defect but a principle which it is necessary for all — for the learned equally with the unlearned — to adopt and profess as the very condition of faith — a principle which we all avow when we say: 'I believe the Holy Catholic Church:' for by this we profess not only our belief of what we have been taught already but of whatever else we may have yet to learn of the Church's teaching. The Church has always en-couraged the study of her divine devotions and the contemplation of her mysteries, but she requires all her children to receive these doctrines from her word, and to study and contemplate them in the spirit of hunible submission to the authority of her unerring teaching: nor can she that is conscious of her infallibility act otherwise. May it not be a matter of grave reflection to consider whether or not the profession of faith — ‘I believe the Holy Catholic Church' — made with the reservation that the Ecclesia docens may suffer a suspense in its functions of teaching, can contain a fides implicita and consequently be a profession of faith at all? And is it less important to consider whether the act of attributing indifference in the learned and superstition in the unlearned as the natural results of conduct of which the Church is supposed capable may not be accepted as a caution for the faithful to be on their guard against the Church lest it should now be leading them into one or other of these extremes?

I fear that the tendency of this Article may be to induce speculative minds to think disparagingly of the infallibility of the Church, and to conceive that though the Church as a whole may be infallible, yet either of its parts, the Ecclesia docens or the Ecclesia discens may fail: or at all events, that if either of these parts be infallible, that infallibility does not reside with the Ecclesia docens but the Ecclesia dlscens. Thus they may be led to place the disciple above the Master. The step between this and placing private judgment above the doctrinal authority of the Church is not a wide one. As I am conscious that I must attribute the appearance of this article to myself as having given occasion to it at least in some measure, I therefore deem it a duty to say this much of my impressions regarding it.

I remain my dear Dr. Newman Yours ever truly John Gillow.

[John Lewis]

Apr 15, 2023 18:11:14 GMT -5 wenceslav said:

John, I’m not sure posting this historical account in the NovusOrdoWatch ComBox would make any difference. As Pacelli said elsewhere, they “openly deny that they must adhere to the Catholic teaching as explained by the theologians who have all taught this in consensus.” For example (in the ComBox) in order to convince others that the manuals are supposedly all over the place wrt points of doctrine, a famous sede blogger has erroneously maintained that Ludwig Ott ( a major theologian before VII) wrote against Baptism of Desire in opposition to St. Alphonsus. That is absolutely false and a quick look at the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” - Ott’s famous manual - shows just how false that statement really is. 

I would encourage you to at least oppose that false statement. The situation is what it is because people wrongly assumed that Fr Cekada would be ignored. If we don't oppose error then it will only increase.

[wenceslav]

A Sede-blogger said:
Provide that quote that said what you just stated. Can you cut and paste it? If they say what you're saying, then it should easy to show that Church teaching. The problem is that opinions about something to be de fide doesn't make something de fide. St. Alphonsus Liguori said BOD is de fide but Ott said differently. Which is it? Can you provide that Church teaching or not?

With respect to the BoD issue, I stand corrected. In my haste I misread the sede-blogger’s intent. He was instead discussing the theological note that Ott gives to baptism of desire. Ott says BoD is sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") and refers to teachings which are generally accepted as divine revelation by Catholic theologians but not defined as such by the Church. The effects of denial: mortal sin against Faith. As Ott infers, all Catholics must be believe BoD.

[wenceslav]

Hi John,

This is what I placed on the NOW ComBox:

Mr. Xxxxx,
And yet, if you lived before VII and you said a “temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens,” or that “the body of Bishops could fail in their confession of the faith.” (i.e. Ecclesia docens are residential bishops - the Teaching Church) you would be suspect of heresy and even asked to recant or explain yourself by the Holy See. See the 1859 example of Cd. (then Fr.) John Henry Newman (i.e. Rambler controversy), who said exactly the same thing as many on this forum.
See documents at URL: tradcath.proboards....

Mr. Xxxxx,

Ott says BoD is sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") and refers to teachings which are generally accepted as divine revelation by Catholic theologians but not defined as such by the Church. The effects of denial: mortal sin against Faith. As Ott infers, all Catholics must be believe BoD.

I think every reader should be aware of this as well.

Response from Sede-blogger

It's one thing to say something against a universal opinion where a pope exists to answer the question, but it's quite another to admit what's actually happened in light of the facts. With Newman, a good explanation could suffice and with our situation, theirs is a good explanation since it's actually happened. Those who believe in "bishops in the woods" are living in a dreamworld and make the Vatican I teaching essentially meaningless.

My Response :
Thank you for your response. In your article that you cited above, you say:

“Sede-blogger said: What we have today is a Church with no ordinary jurisdiction.However, insofar as individual souls are concerned who attend sedevacantist missions, there’s no substantial difference in having canonical pastors at parishes before the apostasy and our sedevacantist priests in missions and chapels. What we have works and is greatly needed. If fulfills the basic needs of the Church during this crisis and accomplishes the bare minimum that’s required for the Church to exist and function for the good of the Faithful.”

That there exist no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (even for a moment) is heresy. I apologize for being so blunt but that is exactly why Newman was requested to recant (for the same statement) by the Holy See. And there is a difference between canonical pastors before the apostasy and our sedevacantist priests managing their missions and chapels today. The latter lack a mission from the Church. I am not saying that their actions are not beneficial to the Faithful and I am indebted to them for the Mass and Sacraments for the last 45 years but the Traditional Sacramental Bishops (according to their own words) lack ordinary jurisdiction. I even knew a Greek Catholic bishop ( now deceased but was the Bishop of the Czech Greek Catholic Exarchate) who was a true Catholic i.e. hated the Novus Ordo, staunchly anti-Communist, served the venerable Byzantine Slavonic Catholic liturgy but was weak on condemning false ecumenism etc. He was a true Catholic bishop but generally failed to defend the Faith as he should have. He certainly possessed habitual jurisdiction. By Faith there are more such bishops in the world.

A quote from a very learned friend: “I do understand the Shepherds of the Church (like the Greek Catholic bishop I mentioned above) have failed to defend the Faith, but it ends there. Our duty as Catholics is to trust the Church and believe what we are bound to believe, and to never deny any teaching. In this case, those doing this are using the tactics of modernists, and yes, I know that sounds strange, but it's true, as the modernists believe that the teachings of the Church evolve with the times, that they are not fixed and perennial truths that are the same for every age of the Church. To them the teaching on the Apostolic Succession no longer makes any sense in our age, and therefore it must evolve to fit our current crisis.”

[Pacelli]

Apr 16, 2023 10:08:10 GMT -5 wenceslav said:

A Sede-blogger said:
Provide that quote that said what you just stated. Can you cut and paste it? If they say what you're saying, then it should easy to show that Church teaching. The problem is that opinions about something to be de fide doesn't make something de fide. St. Alphonsus Liguori said BOD is de fide but Ott said differently. Which is it? Can you provide that Church teaching or not?

With respect to the BoD issue, I stand corrected. In my haste I misread the sede-blogger’s intent. He was instead discussing the theological note that Ott gives to baptism of desire. Ott says BoD is sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") and refers to teachings which are generally accepted as divine revelation by Catholic theologians but not defined as such by the Church. The effects of denial: mortal sin against Faith. As Ott infers, all Catholics must be believe BoD.

Theologians often disagree as far as to the theological note to be assigned, but the important thing is not the note attached, it is whether one must believe the teaching.  A theological note is a matter for theologians to hammer out, but no matter what the note, even if it is not de fide, it may still bind one's conscience, and be matter for a mortal sin to deny.

In the case of Baptism or Desire, with respect to him, I disagree with Ott's assignment of the note, sententia fidei proxima, as the Council of Trent clearly taught "baptism or the desire...", which St. Alphonsus clearly didn't miss, and he based his assignment of the note de fide to the teaching of Baptism of Desire based on the Council's teaching. 

Practically speaking, however, is there really much difference for the average Catholic as to any theological note that compels our belief? All must believe Baptism of Desire and Blood, or either be a heretic, lose your membership in the Church, and go to Hell if unrepentant, if St. Alphonsus and the others that give it the note of de fide are correct, or at a minimum, if Ott and others like him who believed that the lesser note of sententia fidei proxima is correct, the Catholic who knowingly denies this teaching will be a mortal sinner and go to Hell if unrepentant.

If one rejects this teaching if the Church, and is in Hell for it, as it is a mortal sin, if done knowingly, is it really going to matter for that damned soul, which theological note attached to the denied teaching caused their damnation?   

The same applies to the denial of the Apostolic Succession.   Personally, I am convinced this is de fide, but if I'm wrong, so what, it's certainly of a lesser theological note, and proximate to the Faith at a minimum, and if one denies it, with full knowledge, it is the matter of mortal sin.   

There is absolutely no dissenting opinions among theologians on this, thereby creating a permissible tolerated minority view on either Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood or the Apostolic Succession.  To deny any of them is to place one's soul in peril of damnation, regardless of whether one is a heretic or maintains membership in the Church, while being a very bad Catholic by denying truths that he is morally obliged to believe.  Doesn't the fact of committing a mortal sin cause one to be in great fear anymore?

One last point on the matter of the Apostolic Succession, I, like Wenceslav, sympathize with why Catholics may having a hard time with this teaching, and I do understand the Shepherds of the Church have failed to defend the Faith, but it ends there.  Our duty as Catholics is to trust the Church and believe what we are bound to believe, and to never deny any teaching.  In this case, those doing this are using the tactics of modernists, and yes, I know that sounds strange, but it's true, as the modernists believe that the teachings of the Church evolve with the times, that they are not fixed and perennial truths that are the same for every age of the Church.  To them the teaching on the Apostolic Succession no longer makes any sense in our age, and therefore it must evolve to fit our current crisis.   

When Our Lord taught that we must eat His body and drink His Blood, many could not handle this hard teaching, despite just witnessing public miracles, but nevertheless Our Lord did not soften the truth to appease them, he let them go.  Maybe it made no sense to them, and they just couldn't get it straight in their mind how this could be, but their duty was to trust Our Lord, and he never required them to make sense of it, only to believe it, and to trust Him.  Those who, scandalized by the crisis in the Church, who can no longer make sense of the Catholic teaching, and now choose to deny it, because they cannot see how the Church teaching fits any longer, are very much like those who walked away rather than believe Our Lord.  

Gospel of St. John, chapter 6:

61. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
62. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
63. If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67. After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

As Catholics of today, when all is falling apart around us, our duty is to hold the line, believe everything the Church teaches, and never to deny any Catholic teaching, no matter how hard it gets, just because in our minds we can no longer make sense of it.  We are not required to make sense if it, just to believe it.

[Pacelli]

Apr 15, 2023 22:03:09 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

Apr 15, 2023 18:11:14 GMT -5 wenceslav said:

John, I’m not sure posting this historical account in the NovusOrdoWatch ComBox would make any difference. As Pacelli said elsewhere, they “openly deny that they must adhere to the Catholic teaching as explained by the theologians who have all taught this in consensus.” For example (in the ComBox) in order to convince others that the manuals are supposedly all over the place wrt points of doctrine, a famous sede blogger has erroneously maintained that Ludwig Ott ( a major theologian before VII) wrote against Baptism of Desire in opposition to St. Alphonsus. That is absolutely false and a quick look at the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” - Ott’s famous manual - shows just how false that statement really is. 

I would encourage you to at least oppose that false statement. The situation is what it is because people wrongly assumed that Fr Cekada would be ignored. If we don't oppose error then it will only increase.

This forum has been publicly opposing the proponents of this novelty, and they are aware of us here.  The poster, Amabilis, defended the Catholic teaching, and provided sources which were all links to the Catholic teachings on this matter, which were collected on this forum and fully sourced if they wanted to go to the books themselves to check our work, which I always encourage people to do anyway.  They could have easily read the Catholic teaching and submitted to it, but that's clearly not what happened.  They, from all appearances, are digging in, and are not submitting to the Church's teaching.  

The discussion on there reminds me very much of the 2012 heated exchanged between Fr. Cekada and John Lane, on Ignis Arden's, in which John Lane defended the Catholic teaching and provided source after source, while Fr. Cekada's heckled John, and provided absolutely no evidence to support his novel and heretical idea.  We all know why Fr. Cekada provided no evidence, it does not exist, and was all part of his rash opinion, which was directly at odds with Catholic teaching.   

[Pacelli]

Apr 15, 2023 22:03:09 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

Apr 15, 2023 18:11:14 GMT -5 wenceslav said:

John, I’m not sure posting this historical account in the NovusOrdoWatch ComBox would make any difference. As Pacelli said elsewhere, they “openly deny that they must adhere to the Catholic teaching as explained by the theologians who have all taught this in consensus.” For example (in the ComBox) in order to convince others that the manuals are supposedly all over the place wrt points of doctrine, a famous sede blogger has erroneously maintained that Ludwig Ott ( a major theologian before VII) wrote against Baptism of Desire in opposition to St. Alphonsus. That is absolutely false and a quick look at the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” - Ott’s famous manual - shows just how false that statement really is. 

I would encourage you to at least oppose that false statement. The situation is what it is because people wrongly assumed that Fr Cekada would be ignored. If we don't oppose error then it will only increase.

The assumption, at least for me, was based on the belief that Catholics, who cared enough about the Faith to reject the man commonly believed to be the Pope, because of his heresy and error against the Faith, would not so easily fall for shoddy, emotionally laden papers and YouTube videos, written or spoken by a man who was unauthorized to teach Catholics, and that any decent amount of scrutiny would have easily set off alarm bells in the reader/listener that something was gravely wrong. 

I will say also that these teachings were publicly opposed, just not as vigorously as in recent times, until now.   See public opposition by John Lane and others on the Ignis Arden's forum, and also at the Bellarmine Forums in numerous threads dealing with heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church and the NUC error.   Also, the TeDeum forum is closed, but these heresies and errors were also publicly opposed on there, by this writer, Voxx, and others.

[John Lewis]

Apr 16, 2023 12:55:02 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

Apr 15, 2023 22:03:09 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

I would encourage you to at least oppose that false statement. The situation is what it is because people wrongly assumed that Fr Cekada would be ignored. If we don't oppose error then it will only increase.

The assumption, at least for me, was based on the belief that Catholics, who cared enough about the Faith to reject the man commonly believed to be the Pope, because of his heresy and error against the Faith, would not so easily fall for shoddy, emotionally laden papers and YouTube videos, written or spoken by a man who was unauthorized to teach Catholics, and that any decent amount of scrutiny would have easily set off alarm bells in the reader/listener that something was gravely wrong. 

I will say also that these teachings were publicly opposed, just not as vigorously as in recent times, until now.   See public opposition by John Lane and others on the Ignis Arden's forum, and also at the Bellarmine Forums in numerous threads dealing with heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church and the NUC error.   Also, the TeDeum forum is closed, but these heresies and errors were also publicly opposed on there, by this writer, Voxx, and others.

As much as I hate twitter, this is probably that is probably the place where this error needs to be opposed.

[John Lewis]

Apr 16, 2023 11:33:35 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

Apr 16, 2023 10:08:10 GMT -5 wenceslav said:

With respect to the BoD issue, I stand corrected. In my haste I misread the sede-blogger’s intent. He was instead discussing the theological note that Ott gives to baptism of desire. Ott says BoD is sententia fidei proxima ("teaching proximate to faith") and refers to teachings which are generally accepted as divine revelation by Catholic theologians but not defined as such by the Church. The effects of denial: mortal sin against Faith. As Ott infers, all Catholics must be believe BoD.

Theologians often disagree as far as to the theological note to be assigned, but the important thing is not the note attached, it is whether one must believe the teaching.  A theological note is a matter for theologians to hammer out, but no matter what the note, even if it is not de fide, it may still bind one's conscience, and be matter for a mortal sin to deny.

In the case of Baptism or Desire, with respect to him, I disagree with Ott's assignment of the note, sententia fidei proxima, as the Council of Trent clearly taught "baptism or the desire...", which St. Alphonsus clearly didn't miss, and he based his assignment of the note de fide to the teaching of Baptism of Desire based on the Council's teaching. 

Practically speaking, however, is there really much difference for the average Catholic as to any theological note that compels our belief? All must believe Baptism of Desire and Blood, or either be a heretic, lose your membership in the Church, and go to Hell if unrepentant, if St. Alphonsus and the others that give it the note of de fide are correct, or at a minimum, if Ott and others like him who believed that the lesser note of sententia fidei proxima is correct, the Catholic who knowingly denies this teaching will be a mortal sinner and go to Hell if unrepentant.

If one rejects this teaching if the Church, and is in Hell for it, as it is a mortal sin, if done knowingly, is it really going to matter for that damned soul, which theological note attached to the denied teaching caused their damnation?   

The same applies to the denial of the Apostolic Succession.   Personally, I am convinced this is de fide, but if I'm wrong, so what, it's certainly of a lesser theological note, and proximate to the Faith at a minimum, and if one denies it, with full knowledge, it is the matter of mortal sin.   

There is absolutely no dissenting opinions among theologians on this, thereby creating a permissible tolerated minority view on either Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood or the Apostolic Succession.  To deny any of them is to place one's soul in peril of damnation, regardless of whether one is a heretic or maintains membership in the Church, while being a very bad Catholic by denying truths that he is morally obliged to believe.  Doesn't the fact of committing a mortal sin cause one to be in great fear anymore?

^ This needs to be pointed out to everyone involved in the discussions.

[samuelsede]

Apr 16, 2023 12:55:02 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

Apr 15, 2023 22:03:09 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

I would encourage you to at least oppose that false statement. The situation is what it is because people wrongly assumed that Fr Cekada would be ignored. If we don't oppose error then it will only increase.

The assumption, at least for me, was based on the belief that Catholics, who cared enough about the Faith to reject the man commonly believed to be the Pope, because of his heresy and error against the Faith, would not so easily fall for shoddy, emotionally laden papers and YouTube videos, written or spoken by a man who was unauthorized to teach Catholics, and that any decent amount of scrutiny would have easily set off alarm bells in the reader/listener that something was gravely wrong. 

I will say also that these teachings were publicly opposed, just not as vigorously as in recent times, until now.   See public opposition by John Lane and others on the Ignis Arden's forum, and also at the Bellarmine Forums in numerous threads dealing with heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church and the NUC error.   Also, the TeDeum forum is closed, but these heresies and errors were also publicly opposed on there, by this writer, Voxx, and others.

Unfortunately, this error, along with many others, will remain prevalent until the crisis ends and an undoubtedly true Pope judges each matter. The sheep are scattered -- just consider how many laymen are consulting theology manuals or excerpts therefrom with little to no training in philosophy or theology, without *any* oversight from Church authorities, engaging in controversy that ordinary laymen would never have been expected to dabble in during normal times, all in a good willed effort to make sense of the myriad complex issues posed by the crisis. And I say this not to castigate those who do this -- for I am among them, and it would seem to be a 'necessary evil,' so to speak, of our times -- but merely to underscore how bizzare and unhappy a situation we find ourselves in today.

Consequently, until the crisis is over, I think it's best to treat those who have fallen into such errors with unwavering patience, and be most reluctant to conclude pertinacity is present due to the large number of mitigating factors at play.

[John Lewis]

Apr 17, 2023 3:42:44 GMT -5 samuelsede said:

Apr 16, 2023 12:55:02 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

The assumption, at least for me, was based on the belief that Catholics, who cared enough about the Faith to reject the man commonly believed to be the Pope, because of his heresy and error against the Faith, would not so easily fall for shoddy, emotionally laden papers and YouTube videos, written or spoken by a man who was unauthorized to teach Catholics, and that any decent amount of scrutiny would have easily set off alarm bells in the reader/listener that something was gravely wrong. 

I will say also that these teachings were publicly opposed, just not as vigorously as in recent times, until now.   See public opposition by John Lane and others on the Ignis Arden's forum, and also at the Bellarmine Forums in numerous threads dealing with heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church and the NUC error.   Also, the TeDeum forum is closed, but these heresies and errors were also publicly opposed on there, by this writer, Voxx, and others.

Unfortunately, this error, along with many others, will remain prevalent until the crisis ends and an undoubtedly true Pope judges each matter. The sheep are scattered -- just consider how many laymen are consulting theology manuals or excerpts therefrom with little to no training in philosophy or theology, without *any* oversight from Church authorities, engaging in controversy that ordinary laymen would never have been expected to dabble in during normal times, all in a good willed effort to make sense of the myriad complex issues posed by the crisis. And I say this not to castigate those who do this -- for I am among them, and it would seem to be a 'necessary evil,' so to speak, of our times -- but merely to underscore how bizzare and unhappy a situation we find ourselves in today.

Consequently, until the crisis is over, I think it's best to treat those who have fallen into such errors with unwavering patience, and be most reluctant to conclude pertinacity is present due to the large number of mitigating factors at play.

I agree with Samuel here too, nonetheless reminding others that something is a mortal sin should at least cause them to pause, reflect and examine the issues more carefully rather than continue as they are.

[Pacelli]

Apr 17, 2023 1:42:10 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

Apr 16, 2023 12:55:02 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

The assumption, at least for me, was based on the belief that Catholics, who cared enough about the Faith to reject the man commonly believed to be the Pope, because of his heresy and error against the Faith, would not so easily fall for shoddy, emotionally laden papers and YouTube videos, written or spoken by a man who was unauthorized to teach Catholics, and that any decent amount of scrutiny would have easily set off alarm bells in the reader/listener that something was gravely wrong. 

I will say also that these teachings were publicly opposed, just not as vigorously as in recent times, until now.   See public opposition by John Lane and others on the Ignis Arden's forum, and also at the Bellarmine Forums in numerous threads dealing with heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church and the NUC error.   Also, the TeDeum forum is closed, but these heresies and errors were also publicly opposed on there, by this writer, Voxx, and others.

As much as I hate twitter, this is probably that is probably the place where this error needs to be opposed.

John,

I am not against using Twitter, and I hope that some may use that platform if they think good will come from it, but, at least for the most part, I will stay here on this forum.   What we really need to combat these modern errors is what we don't have at present, the lawfully commissioned shepherds who will defend the Faith.  Any action by unauthorized laymen, will only affect the margins, not much more, but I do what I do to try to combat the errors.