Talk:Baianism

The first part of this article is a biography on Baius which does not belong here and should be incorporated into the already existing article on Baius. Omegastar (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Surely the following text:

Certain inconsiderate views of the master regarding the authority of the Holy See, and even of the Council of Trent, and, on the part of his disciples, the ill disguised hope that Gregory XIII might declare void all that had been done by his predecessor, bade fair to reopen the whole question. Pope Gregory XIII would not permit this. The Bull, "Provisionis nostræ" (1579), confirmed the preceding papal acts and the Jesuit Toletus was commissioned to receive and bring to the pope the final abjuration of Baius. We have it under the name of "Confessio Michaelis Baii". It reads, in part: "I am convinced that the condemnation of all those propositions is just and lawful. I confess that very many (plurimas) of these propositions are in my books, and in the sense in which they are condemned. I renounce them all and resolve never more to teach or defend any of them." Despite this recantation, Baius' errors had sunk too deep into his mind not to occasionally crop up in rash tenets. Up to the last few years of his life sad contests were raised by, or around, him, and nothing short of the official admission by the university of a compact body of doctrine could quell those contests. Baius died in the Catholic church, to which his studiousness, attainments and rashness came near to infringing. The evil seed he had sown bore fruits of bitterness later on in the errors of Jansenism.

...is not NPOV, but I don't know enough about the issue to correct it. MaeseLeon 09:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

It appears that Baianism is a historical source of opposition to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, this should be verified or clarified somewhere. ADM (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I added a dubious - discuss tag after the following assertion in the section 'Catholic View': '(2) Original Sin is described not as a deep deterioration of our nature, but as the forfeiture of purely gratuitous privileges'. After several careful readings, I couldn't find such an assertion in Session V, Decree on Original Sin, or Session VI, Decree on Justification, which the text purports to quote. I submit that the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 (which the text is drawn from) reflects rather the doxa of post-Suarezian Thomism, which undoubtedly was the dominant view in 1907 (and which I have great respect for, btw), than the actual words of the Council. Just to clarify that I don't mean the tag as an invitation to discuss the accuracy of the assertion itself, but rather its presence in the text of the Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caf1815 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [reply ]