Author Topic: Baptism of Blood IS REAL!!!!!! (Read 18587 times)

CM · « **Reply #45 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:34:58 AM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

So we are no longer dealing with a negated disjunction, as you said previously?

Yes, we are. A logical disjunction. "OR" is a disjunction. And since you made it necessary by applying the incorrect truth table (one that makes no sense in any statement that you try to use it with) I am specifying that it is a logical disjunction. The compound statement, wherein it is contained is negated by "cannot".

Quote from: C.M.M.M.

And if this is a simple logical disjunction, (which differs from before, as you said cannot negates the disjunction) then...

It doesn't differ at all from what I said. It's what I have said from the beginning. Read and see for yourself.

The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for exclusive disjunction, which hasn't any practical value in language:

Quote from: C.M.M.M.

If it is FALSE that justification cannot take lace without the laver of regeneration, and it is FALSE that justification cannot take place without the desire thereof, than, according to your table, is it FALSE that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration, or the desire there of.

Right?

Yes, that's right and I know you realize that the Council would not utter the propositions if they in fact were false, therefore we know that they are true. Arbitrarily changing the values of the propositions is merely an exercise in logic (a rather redundant one, which I am not exactly sure why we are even doing). So where's the problem?

CM · « **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:36:47 AM »

Also, I just noticed this:

Quote from: Caraffa

A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?

Caraffa, why are you conveniently ignoring the words that are plain as day in front of your face? I said PREVENIENT GRACE[/u] more than once in this thread, but you've continually ignored it. Why? And you even quoted the very words right before you asked this question, which I have already answered for you in the very same quote!

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context...

...A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient GRACE from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.

A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?

You seem to want to assert that faith and grace are the same thing. This is not so. Grace necessarily precedes faith, though faith, once conferred on an individual, can also be instrumental in increasing grace, but not without first responding to grace.

Sorry for calling you out like that Caraffa, but in the words of C.M.M.M.:

Quote

And that is why you read twice before posting...

Tell me about it. And for what, folks? To say that decrees of God the Holy Ghost can contradict one another? Or to say that even though (according to you) the objective sense of the text may be contradictory, but we can deny the objective sense of the words of the decree? To say that someone can be saved who is not Catholic? Or even someone who has not even heard of Jesus Christ?

CM · « **Reply #47 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:39:18 AM »

Woe to any man who dies while believing that a decree of God the Holy Ghost DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.

St. John 9:41: "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth."

Think material vs formal heresy here people and if it doesn't start to hit home now, then I don't know what will... also, think invincible ignorance of the true Faith not being sinful; ie not damned for infidelity, but still damned for original sin and actual mortal sins against the natural law. Those who can know on the other hand, they are condemned for infidelity also, hence:

St. Matthew10:15: "Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE ALL THE DECREES OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST AS THEY STAND?

Quote from: The serpent, to Eve,

Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?

Quote from: Eve

God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

Lest PERHAPS we die??? Shame on you Eve! God said nothing of perhaps!

Quote from: The serpent, to Eve,

No, you shall not die the death.

Hmmm... sound familiar?

Quote from: satan, to many who believe they are Catholic

Why hath God commanded you, that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

Lest what? Lest perhaps we don't get baptism of desire or baptism of blood, which are both contrary to the very words of the God-man Himself and contrary to the decrees of God the Holy Ghost?

Forget it satan! I believe God's words AS HE DECLARED THEM.

CM · « **Reply #48 on:** July 24, 2009, 11:19:52 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for exclusive disjunction which hasn't any practical value in language

Pardon me. This should have read as follows:

The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for logical NOR, but we are dealing with a simple logical disjunction, since it cannot be an exclusive disjunction which hasn't any practical value in language.

CMMM · « **Reply #49 on:** July 24, 2009, 11:27:05 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

You treat "without the laver of regeneration" as something that can be either true or false in and of itself, as if true means it's there and false means it's not. No, you have to operate on the value (T/F) of the proposition in the statement. You have to say: "If it is true/false that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration/desire thereof, then..." You have to do this for both propositions to produce a correct result of true or false.

How does that alter it? Let us say that 'If it is true that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration', and enter that into the table in place of where I provided 'laver of regeneration' as a necessity for justification, it makes no difference to the table. To recieve justification, you must receive the laver of regeneration. The values are the same. Me treating it as true or false is simply a way to shorten the amount of typing I must do. :wink:

Quote from: Catolic Martyr

Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website:

K, we're dealing with Negation a compound statement...

Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):

K, the compound statement is a disjunction.

We're dealing Negation of a Disjunction! (Bad assumption on my part.)

I still don't see how the aNORb table is illogical. I can give an excellent example that supports it.

The opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.

Are both required? Not necessarily. It supports the aNORb table perfectly. But if we apply this to your table, we get illogical answers, as either would be sufficient to keep the opera house open.

And the only reason I'm debating on the logic tables is that each portion of the table must be valid if the logic is to be validly used, to my knowledge. If one portion of the table is false, than logically, the statement is not supported under that law, and our interpretation must be wrong.

I think... apparently logic is not my strong suit.

CM · « **Reply #50 on:** July 24, 2009, 11:41:14 PM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

K, the compound statement is a disjunction.

Well technically no. The disjunction is contained in the compound statement. We are negating the compound statement and we are also necessarily negating the disjunction in the compound statement.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

How does that alter it?

It alters it by operating on the subordinate clause alone (which clause alone cannot be true or false, since it is not a proposition), rather than on each of the propositions, consisting of the independent clause and one of the subordinate clauses.

Quote from: C.M.M.M.

I still don't see how the aNORb table is illogical. I can give an excellent example that supports it.

The opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.

logical NOR is not for use in linguistics, but to give your statement the benefit of doubt, let's do the work:

Quote from: C.M.M.M

(Table taken from This Site)

The Negated Disjunction
a b a NOR b
1)false false true
2)false true false
3)true false false
4)true true false

We'll use line 4 of the truth table for logical NOR:

IF it is TRUE that the opera house cannot stay open without government funding, and
IF it is TRUE that the opera house cannot stay open without public support, THEN
IT is FALSE (?!?!?!) that the opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.

Quote from: C.M.M.M.

And the only reason I'm debating on the logic tables is that each portion of the table must be valid if the logic is to be validly used, to my knowledge. If one portion of the table is false, than logically, the statement is not supported under that law, and our interpretation must be wrong.

Correct. See above.

By the way, here is a correct example of what logical NOR is used for:
(note that it is not linguistics)

Quote from: C.M.M.M.

I think... apparently logic is not my strong suit.

Well, we're all in this together to help each other out, as long as we all come to truly desire to recognize and obey Truth. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to get off the topic of logic now.

In fact, let's segue: Please answer me two somethings, and please do be honest:

Do you WANT to believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood?

If so, why?

CMMM · « **Reply #51 on:** July 25, 2009, 02:00:34 AM »

Yes, I do. Why?

If Baptism by Blood or Desire is false, what have we accomplished?

We've proved every church father was a heretic.

We've proved that constant church teaching, although never infallibly defined, has changed.

We've proved that every doctor of the church was a heretic.

We've proved many a saint, although canonized, can not actually be in heaven.

We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.

We've proved that every Native American who lived in North America, or every Aboriginal who lived in Australia, or Aztec, etc, etc, prior to Catholicism crossing the ocean, is burning in hell for the sin of being predestined by God to be born where they could never become Catholic.

It all seems overly fishy to me. God's justice is supreme for sure,but that is along with his mercy, his love, and his forgiveness.

We've proved that the breviary is also filled with error, as it lists 3 saints who received Baptism by Blood.

What if Peter infallibly defined the idea of Baptism by Blood or Desire, we just have no record of it? It was passed on as sacred tradition, and that is why all the fathers preach it, all teh doctors preach it, saint's are justified by it, yet we deny it?

It makes no sense. That is why I feel it must be right.

Alright, my rant done. Now, explain to me why you feel they must be wrong.

CM · « **Reply #52 on:** July 25, 2009, 05:29:34 AM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

Yes, I do. Why?

If Baptism by Blood or Desire is false, what have we accomplished?

We've ascertained the truth, which cannot ever contradict the truth. Anyone who believes that infallible decrees can contradict one another, truly does not have Divine and Catholic Faith.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved every church father was a heretic.

Wrong. Heresy is the denial of a dogma. A dogma is something the Church proposes for belief as Divinely revealed either in her solemn Magisterium or in her Ordinary and universal Magisterium. The Church Fathers were not infallible, although it is understood to be infallible when ALL the Church Fathers who taught on a matter taught the same thing with no dissenting opinions. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are part of neither Magisterium, since there have been dissenting opinions on both sides prior to the infallible decrees, which make it clear that only baptism of water cleanses original sin and makes one a member of the Church.

And this is exactly why St. Peter and his successors were given the gift of infallibility, so that by the exercise of his office, he could put an end to any lawful debates on doctrinal issues by declaring an infallible dogmatic decree.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved that constant church teaching, although never infallibly defined, has changed.

Truths of Faith never change. Dogmas never change. Human knowledge of dogmas progresses over time, however. Moses and the prophets knew comparatively little about God, whereas if they were to have had a chat with a Christian from the future, even a lay person, they would be astounded at the treasury of the knowledge of God, which has been bestowed upon us in the fullness of time.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved that every doctor of the church was a heretic.

Again, not so. Aquinas, who taught baptism of desire, died before the Council Vienne, which ended any lawful debate on whether a person could be cleansed from original sin in this manner. Alphonsus, on the other hand, was aware of the teachings of Trent, and yet baptism of desire is attributed to his writings. See argument below.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved many a saint, although canonized, can not actually be in heaven.

How have we done that? Have you ever heard of tampering? Or retractions? Or material heresy? Or loss of the use of reason (ie; senility)? These are all possible explanations for why saints are indeed saints, who have been canonized and yet have heresies attributed to them. And if it should turn out that a canonization was in fact erroneous (and neither your nor I have the right to presume to state as much), it must be remembered that canonizations are not Truths proposed as Divinely revealed, are based upon fallible evidence and human testimony, and so are not infallible to begin with.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.

Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved that every Native American who lived in North America, or every Aboriginal who lived in Australia, or Aztec, etc, etc, prior to Catholicism crossing the ocean, is burning in hell for the sin of being predestined by God to be born where they could never become Catholic.

And why would that be the case do you suppose? Has it ever occurred to you to read the Old Testament? God suffered ALL THE WORLD except the Israelites to be delivered up to idolatry, and therefore to be damned. This is indeed a just punishment for original sin, and for multiplying sins against His Majesty.

Now consider the peoples you have listed. Which group among them are NOT idolaters?

Quote from: C.M.M.M

It all seems overly fishy to me. God's justice is supreme for sure,but that is along with his mercy, his love, and his forgiveness.

I used to feel the way you do now. And you are right to say that God's justice is supreme. God gives all His creatures what is their due. But He doesn't OWE anybody His mercy. It is appointed for a man once to die, and that is the just wages of sin. The fact that God has deigned to give us a Redeemer in Jesus Christ, who mercifully preached to us that sublime and narrow way to salvation is a gratuitous act of mercy, as is the gift of grace that He gives to all those who will embark upon that path.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

We've proved that the breviary is also filled with error, as it lists 3 saints who received Baptism by Blood.

I don't know anything about this, though I have heard arguments about certain saints, such as Emerantiana and Genesius, but the fact is that there is not any proof that they never received baptism. In fact Augustine believes that Genesius did receive baptism validly while on the stage, and it is rather a strange notion to believe that Emerantiana would have been out and about, praying in public as an unbaptized Catechumen during a bitter persecution. Anyway, suffice it to say that the breviary is not an ex cathedra decree.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

What if Peter infallibly defined the idea of Baptism by Blood or Desire, we just have no record of it? It was passed on as sacred tradition, and that is why all the fathers preach it, all teh doctors preach it, saint's are justified by it, yet we deny it?

Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

It makes no sense. That is why I feel it must be right.

That's because you are building to yourself a graven image, a false jesus christ, who's teachings do not resemble those of the Creator God-man Jesus Christ, the King of all creation. Sadly, your religion is fraught with contradiction until you recognize the truth in the many authoritative statements of the Church, and God Himself, which state that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT (not can not, but cannot) enter the kingdom of heaven.

Quote from: C.M.M.M

Alright, my rant done. Now, explain to me why you feel they must be wrong.

God simply does not contradict Himself. Your position demands that you say He does. Or that you say God the Holy Ghost truly does not speak in ex cathedra decrees. Or that St. Peter and his successors do not the perform the office of Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Please understand that denying baptism of desire is not a popular position to hold, and I know this. Yet it is the correct position. The proof of this is in the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church, not in what theologians and other fallible men and women may say.

The Catholic Faith is glorious, unchanging and perfect, just like it's Divine Founder, yet belief in baptism of desire and baptism of blood poke holes in God's credibility and His consistency, destroys the coherence of dogmatic statements of the popes and encourages a person to believe in salvation outside the Church, and indeed the fruits of these heresies are manifest today throughout the world.

For example, we have people like Bishop Sanborn (whom I was frighteningly close to following, before God gave me the grace to reject him and baptism of desire) who believes pagans and idolaters can be saved while they are still pagans and idolaters.

Rejecting baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and the opposition and persecution it may bring, are simply necessary to be Catholic. A person cannot, without sin, pretend it isn't heresy, just because most people of the age don't believe it is.

Is it enough to just believe in God for salvation?

St. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

No. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. But even being one who is baptized, yet does not believe, as the Lord says, leads to condemnation. I take it you're baptized? Good. Start believing. Be saved.

Finally, I would like to pass along a part of an email I received from someone today who has recognized the truth in the matter of baptism of desire:

Quote

I just wanted you to know I have not run away, still around. I am currently reading a book that "######" sent. Funny thing in this book about Feeney. There is a most excellant description of the American Martyrs. HMMM, Fr. Jean de Brébeuf had been teaching the Indians, they were ready for Baptism. If Fr. de Brébeuf had believed in BOD (surely by this point as he was walking through pure hell to get back to the Indians to baptize them, so they were ready), he would have stayed where he was at and not risked the Iroquois who were on a rampage. If he believed in BOD then he would have thought it is good enough, and the Indians had the desire to be baptized and so all would be well. But, no. He did not believe, clearly as he went back had such horrendous torture and finally ended with his heart ripped out of his beating chest. Clearly he had never heard of BOD or "close enough is good enough."

Now go look yourself in the mirror and see if you can utter this sentence without lying:
"I BELIEVE ALL OF GOD'S WORDS EXACTLY AS THEY ARE DECLARED IN THE INFALLIBLE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM."

CMMM · « **Reply #53 on:** July 25, 2009, 10:25:52 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Marty

Wrong. Heresy is the denial of a dogma. A dogma is something the Church proposes for belief as Divinely revealed either in her solemn Magisterium or in her Ordinary and universal Magisterium. The Church Fathers were not infallible, although it is understood to be infallible when ALL the Church Fathers who taught on a matter taught the same thing with no dissenting opinions. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are part of neither Magisterium, since there have been dissenting opinions on both sides prior to the infallible decrees, which make it clear that only baptism of water cleanses original sin and makes one a member of the Church.
Quote

Can you demonstrate which of the Fathers dissented from baptism by desire or blood? You can PM them to me, or place them here..

Quote from: Catholic Marty
Truths of Faith never change. Dogmas never change. Human knowledge of dogmas progresses over time, however. Moses and the prophets knew comparatively little about God, whereas if they were to have had a chat with a Christian from the future, even a lay person, they would be astounded at the treasury of the knowledge of God, which has been bestowed upon us in the fullness of time.

I don't see how this even addresses my question. It can be shown that baptism by desire and blood have been an accepted teaching in the church, almost since it's inception. If the church has clarified it's position and made such ideas impossible through ex cathedra statements, why did it not explicitly say that baptism by desire or blood are wrong, especially after they were so ably defended by Thomas in his Summa, which was present at Trent.

It's true our knowledge of the truth can grow, but if the truths of the faith never change, and the early church, up until you, (or whomever began the no baptism by blood or desire debate) taught them, how is that not a change?

But I'm sure this will be easier to address when you provide your list.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Again, not so. Aquinas, who taught baptism of desire, died before the Council Vienne, which ended any lawful debate on whether a person could be cleansed from original sin in this manner.

I'm sure this will be part of your list. I'd like to look at it. Call me lazy, but if I am compiling a list in support, I doubt I will have time to compile a list for against as well, at least in a timely manner.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
How have we done that? Have you ever heard of tampering? Or retractions? Or material heresy? Or loss of the use of reason (ie; senility)? These are all possible explanations for why saints are indeed saints, who have been canonized and yet have heresies attributed to them. And if it should turn out that a canonization was in fact erroneous (and neither your nor I have the right to presume to state as much), it must be remembered that canonizations are not Truths proposed as Divinely revealed, are based upon fallible evidence and human testimony, and so are not infallible to begin with.

I have heard of all those things. Do you have any concrete, un-disputable proof that all the docuмents from past councils, letters from past popes, or any writing you would use to condemn are not tampered with?

And we do not have the authority to state saints are not saints, but we have the authority to says popes are not popes? I will need clarification on that.

Quote from: Catholic Marty
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.

That seems awful close to a strawman, if my understanding of a strawman is accurate.

My statement was built on the assumption that a child can obtain baptism only after exiting the womb. Indeed, if this child was condemned to hell, it would be only for original sin. My point was it is impossible for an aborted child to be baptized, and as such, the free will of it's parents have ultimately placed it in a situation where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding.

Which again makes no sense, as God is bound by nothing.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
And why would that be the case do you suppose? Has it ever occurred to you to read the Old Testament? God suffered ALL THE WORLD except the Israelites to be delivered up to idolatry, and therefore to be damned. This is indeed a just punishment for original sin, and for multiplying sins against His Majesty.

Now consider the peoples you have listed. Which group among them are NOT idolaters?

This seems insulting. Yes, I have read the old testament. Has it ever occurred to you to practice humility. Fantastic that you have read the old testament and may completely understand it in it's entirety (though I expect you only know the parts which support your beliefs, and no little of the rest), I am no old testament scholar.

I think, again however, you miss the point. It is almost the same as above, with the aborted. These men and women were born into a society, by God's will, where they would never have the chance to hear Catholic truth. God has predestined them to damnation in a sense, by allowing them to be born in a place where they would never receive valid baptism.

Damned for original sin alone, or damned for original sin and idolatry is little different. Both are in hell.

Both never had the opportunity to escape hell fire.

God is bound to that.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.

I feel this is definitely unfair. The question is purely hypothetical. Just we know that Saint Joseph was a widower and he had children from a previous marriage through sacred tradition, though there is no record of such, how can we be completely sure that Saint Peter did not infallibly teach baptism by blood or desire?

In Acts 10:34-35, Peter is awful close to doing so.

And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.

How can Cornelius be acceptable without Baptism?

Hypothetical, of course.

As far as Jean de Brebuef is concerned, that is a very large assumption.

Trent says that reception of communion and reconciliation are not necessary for salvation. Yet why do people place themselves in such danger to receive them?

CMMM · « **Reply #54 on:** July 25, 2009, 10:26:42 AM »

:smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc:

:smile:

Caminus · « **Reply #55 on:** July 25, 2009, 02:19:03 PM »

Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition. He doesn't accept what has been handed down as a rule of belief, rather he subjects this rule to his own arbitrary opining, thereby declaring doctors of the Church heretics and deposing Popes from their rightful throne. It's truly a sad spectacle as he has cast out everyone from the Church but himself where he stands alone. When he is confronted with an authority, he does not faint from asserting individual men are not infallible, implying error on the part of a great doctor. 'Tis very unfortunate that he is too blinded by pride so as not to be able to assert this of his own opinions. So rare is this form of pride that I suspect a demon is fomenting this vice directly.

Caminus · « **Reply #56 on:** July 25, 2009, 02:24:37 PM »

Quote

this decree actually teaches CONTRARY to their heresy.

I'm sure this would be quite a surprise to every theologian since the great council. Even if we accepted your absurd opinions, it still would not amount to an actual heresy as the doctrine of baptism of desire implies its necessity, though the effects are received in a different manner. In short, it doesn't deny any part of revelation, rather it affirms baptism's absolute necessity by relating said desire, that is actually willing to receive the sacrament, to the sacrament itself. This is true of Penance and the Eucharist as well.

Caminus · « **Reply #57 on:** July 25, 2009, 02:44:25 PM »

Quote

We are dealing with the negation of a compound statement. We are talking about something that CANNOT take place without this or that. In other words we are stating the circuмstances , which are necessary to exist for this event to be incapable of taking place: the absence of only one of the two above elements, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. Only one has to be missing. Things would be entirely different if the disjunction were changed to a conjunction, that is if the word "or" was switched to the word "and", OR if the "cannot be effected, without" were switched to "can be effected with". Either one of these changes would completely alter the meaning of the phrase, whereas if both changes took place, there would be no change in the meaning whatsoever.

Ah, so your handy logical analysis supercedes dogmatic tradition. Why am I not surprised that you're not surprised that this is just now coming to light. At any rate, all disjunctive and conjuctive propositions can be reduced to conditional propositions. As is clear from the text, the term "or" implies that only one of the conditions is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the proposition itself.

"This translation however cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire"

"The arrest cannot be effected except through placing him in handcuffs or filing for a warrant."

Notice the arrest can be effected in either way, so too with Justification. Converting the proposition into a universal affirmative "can only" changes its quality, but not its meaning for it still asserts the same thing. The idea of negating a conjunction with "neither, nor" is irrelevant as that is not the form of the proposition in question.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #58 on:** July 26, 2009, 12:04:09 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition. He doesn't accept what has been handed down as a rule of belief, rather he subjects this rule to his own arbitrary opining, thereby declaring doctors of the Church heretics and deposing Popes from their rightful throne. It's truly a sad spectacle as he has cast out everyone from the Church but himself where he stands alone. When he is confronted with an authority, he does not faint from asserting individual men are not infallible, implying error on the part of a great doctor. 'Tis very unfortunate that he is too blinded by pride so as not to be able to assert this of his own opinions. So rare is this form of pride that I suspect a demon is fomenting this vice directly.

:cry: :cry: :cry: St. Thomas Aquinus pray for us.

CM · « **Reply #59 on:** July 26, 2009, 02:36:24 AM »