Perhaps some can apprehend the Truth when it is given to them,

A Homily by St. Augustine the Bishop

John 3:1-15

Nicodemus was one of them which believed in the Name of Jesus, when they saw the signs and wonders which he did. So hath John given us to understand a few words before our text: Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feastday, many believed in his Name.  And wherefore did they believe in his Name?  John telleth us immediately: When they saw the miracles which he did.  And now, what saith he touching Nicodemus?  There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jєωs.  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him: Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God.  Nicodemus therefore believed in his Name.  And why did he believe?  He saith: For no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. If, then, Nicodemus was one of the many which had believed in his Name, let us seek to find in Nicodemus why Jesus did not commit himself unto them.  Jesus answered and said unto him: Verily, verily, I say unto thee; except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  Jesus therefore committeth himself unto such as be born again.  Behold, Nicodemus and they that were with him believed in Jesus, but Jesus did not commit himself unto them.  Just so are all Catechumens; they believe in the Name of Christ, but Jesus hath not yet committed himself unto them.   Now I trust ye will be good enough to pay attention, and understand what I am going to say.  If ye ask of a Catechumen: Dost thou believe in Christ? he saith: I believe, and he signeth himself with the sign of the Cross.  The Cross of his Lord is marked upon his forehead, and he is not ashamed of it.  Behold, he believeth in the Name of Christ.  But let us ask him: Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink the blood of the Son of Man? and he knoweth not what we mean, for Jesus hath not yet committed himself unto him.

Another Feeneyite goes berserk in the face of truth!

there is No Such Thing as a 'Feeneyite'...

More of the same. You have nothing. You lost. I didn't try to get away, I have been engaging you continuously even against the advice of some on here. You even admitted that a few days ago when you said "You have been debating with me" and " I have been debating this with you from the beginning"; hardly sounds like I was trying to get away. You cannot help but lie. You habitually lie in the face of facts. I hope you will stop posting, learn Church Dogma, repent and then promote the Sacraments instead of trying to kill faith in them.

Now you call me a liar, and even an "habitual" liar! but the history of the thread shows otherwise. You are yourself lying right now. I didn't deny that you have debated something. I clearly had to convince you early on that you were debating already, just not on the particular topic you hoped to start with. I have emphasized recently that you have been ignoring many significant points I bring up on the very topic I started with. That itself means that you lost. You don't have refutation for them, means you lose. The fact that you had no refutation, and resorted to ridicule, is classic loserville.

For my young children I use the "Penny Catechism". This catechism doesn't at all teach BOD by the way; I guess it would be considered heretical by your ridiculous beliefs. My high school aged children learn from the Roman Catechism. I warn of the error in it which teaches that there are accidents which God cannot foresee, it does not coincide with teaching them that God is omniscient. I also make them read some Dogmatic Statements and the Councils, which they discuss with me. I also keep them updated on the ever evolving false doctrines of the worlds EENS deniers like yourself.

Okay, so what happens when your children say, "Dad, YOU are presenting this to us, and you are not infallible, so I don't trust what you care teaching me!"

Or, "If this Penny Catechism is not infallible, why I we learning from it?"

Or, "Hey Dad, I know that solemn dogma was infallibly written, but if they printer who reprinted it is not infallible, how can I trust it?"

Or, "Dear Father, why should I listen to your criticism of the Roman Catechism, when you are not infallible and the Church is?"

Or, perhaps, a precocious child, "Daddy, how can we trust the validity of our baptisms, worshiping the Eucharist and getting absolved in Confession if the priest is not infallible in performing those acts?"

AES, you mentioned in another thread pertaining to this discussion, that you recognize that you must believe what the Solemn magisterium teaches, as well as what the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium teaches. Nice enough to say, but...

How do you know when something is taught infallibly by the OUM when it was not taught solemnly by the Church?

Judging from your other answers it appears that you don't know, and say that Catholics cannot tell, so that we must believe explicitly in what the Solemn magisterium teaches, and just believe implictly in what the OUM teaches by saying, "I believe in ALL what the Church teaches" and that will suffice?

Then, leave it to Catholics to argue until the cows come home whether something particular of the OUM is or is not taught even though we are just as obliged to believe by divine and Catholic faith that which is taught by the OUM!

If Bumph thinks he won even one single microscopic point on bod, let alone the bod debate, the poor bloke is smoking something powerful. 

Divine revelation, given from Our Lord is solemn teaching. The people believed as they were taught by the Church fathers and the Creeds. What's your point? People didn't even know exactly what solemn infallible teaching was until Vatican I. Even a number of the fathers of Vatican I didn't exactly know which teachings were infallible.

You just invented another thing by saying that divine revelation is solemn teaching. The reason you are doing so is because I am showing you that you don't understand the magisterium, and you are grasping for straws.  There is no support for your novel invention here.

Yes, Catholics DID know what  solemn teaching was before Vatican I. They new when solemn pronouncements and condemnations were given by a pope, especially from General Councils. Everyone knew that the pope and Church were infallible, but there was become questions about the limits and particulars, that is why it was defined. It was, however, always and doctrine.

Your answer reminds me of a time when I happened to be unwilling associating with a hitchhiker for a couple of days, and I had the opportunity to talk to him about how MIRACLES proves where the true Church is. He was once a Catholic (but turned radical hippie) so he was going along with the logic, and happily...until suddenly his mind realized the future implications of what I was saying...and he snapped. Suddenly he pointed and said, "Do you see that tree over there?!....that is a miracle!"  The man just forced himself away from all the reasoning he previously was accepting because he didn't like the implications. The remainder of my association was where he looked at me as if I were an enemy to him because of what I was saying.

You just did that same move with saying everything was solemn teaching....which all the books of history show is false.

Now back to reality. Generations of Catholic lived and died only with their parish priest's teaching and preaching and their occasional bishop. How did they know what to believe with "divine and Catholic faith" in this "ordinary" teaching as being infallible?

First, I'm def a girl. Second, I've smoked you on everything we have discussed. Third, you can't learn. Aint nobody got time for that.

So true to the heresy of Feeneyism - that is - judge another person has "bad will" so that you can get out of the embarrassing situation of going head-to-head and losing very quickly.

It's what heretics do....try to make a reason that gets them out of really putting their convictions to the test.

First, you should stop lying about your gender.

So says Nado with the phoney new screen name.