This is pointless, this guy has lost and he literally has no idea about what the Church or Magisterium is.

I agree it is pointless for you to continue. You have been trying to get out of the discussion pretty much from the beginning. I have not. Your errors keep on being discovered, and you want to turn the channel now so that you can try to do damage control for yourself.
Infallibility means prevention of error against faith or morals. You tried to say recently that Catholics holding error in good faith was no problem as long as they professed to believe ALL the Church teaches. This is not true. Error causes harm by its very nature whether intention is there or not. That is why there is "Church infallibility" and its subset of "papal infallibility"....to PREVENT error; which is prevention of harm to faith or morals.

You also don't know the difference between an infallible docuмent, and an infallible teaching. If the Church imposes assent to encyclicals under pain of sin, then ALL Catholics will end up believing what is taught in those encyclicals (unless shortly after an encyclical needs a slight correction, which would never be major). The end of that means PASSIVE INFALLIBILITY of the learning Church, entailing that there is NO error against faith or morals in those believing the TEACHINGS in those encyclicals. This means the docuмent was not protected by infallibility, but its publication and use proved it had no error against faith or morals, otherwise the Infallibility of the Church would have failed. There cannot be material error against faith or morals, in the believing Church.

Feeneyites believe the Catechism of the Council of Trent contained error against the Faith.
This is a heresy.

The heretic Bumphrey is at it again. He has lost and can't let it go. He knows he didn't and can't win the bod debate so he has to try to steer the conversation away. Never answering questions, forever pushing his "negative infallibility" doctrines. Beating a dead horse with nonsense, claiming that "feenyites" can't answer his amazing arguments. LOL. Refusing to admit that water is necessary for Baptism.

I give full replies, to the point. We have recently been talking about the magisterium stemming directly from my original discussion about Catholic sources. I said nothing about negative infallibility and yet you falsely attribute that to me. Your final statement here is definitively called the logical fallacy of "begging the the question".  You have no reply, and are now bailing out of the discussion. It's here in black and white. I have gone one-on-one with two other Feeneyites here before you, and both of them bailed out while talking about Catholic sources, and we haven't seen from them again. Ladislaus refusing to have a one-on-one because he knows he cannot run the course. You just bailed about out, and like an insane person fall into giggling and logical fallacy to try to convince yourself everything is okay. It's not.

I answered all your questions. You just don't like them, change them around, and ask them again. Then you add a bit of your "painting yourself in a corner" comments, with a hint of 'I have a superior intellect' smugness, not realizing you are being pitied as mentally ill by most of us here. It's all I can do to not LOL while I read your comments. I am only saying this because I personally don't think you are mentally ill, but spiritually ill and I do think there's a reason why you've decided to become such an enemy of the Church by preaching against it's Sacraments. Maybe it's pride, maybe you lost someone close who was not Baptized, I don't know, but it's linked to some mortal sin. What I do know is that you have sheer hatred for the Laws of God, conscious or unconscious.

You have to know how hard it is to discuss things with you since there isn't anything more to discuss. I hardly think this is helpful to anyone. We already know all we need to about you and we've already refuted all your pelagian claims.

The very fact that you have a mind to ridicule the concept of "passive infallibility" shows there is something wrong with your faith. Here are 7 quote from approved Catholic sources ranging from 1828 to 1908 showing this is a Catholic truth. Feeneyites particularly dread this:


======================================================

AUTHENTICATED REPORT of the DISCUSSION which took place AT LONDONDERRY, BETWEEN SIX ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS, AND SIX CLERGYMEN OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH; IN THE DIOCESE OF DERRY, March, (1828).

"the promise of infallibility was made to the college of the Apostles to preserve this passive infallibility, or, in other words, that the people should always profess the doctrine of Christ."

======================================================

A Catholic Dictionary, by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold (1884):

The ecclesia credens, or body of the faithful, is infallible in its belief concerning faith in morals: i.e. in theological language, the Church has a passive infallibility; but, as the faithful are bound to learn the faith from their pastors, it follows that the Church has an active as well as a passive infallibility: i.e. the faithful cannot err in what they believe, because the same Holy Spirit which enables them to believe what their pastors teach provides that these pastors shall teach the truth with unerring voice.

======================================================

The Church of the First Three Centuries: A Work Founded on the Sacred Scripture and Early Patristic Writings, (1861)
Rev. H. E. Dennehy

On the other hand, if the active infallibility, or the inerrancy of the teaching body be proved, the passive infallibility, or the inerrancy of the body thought, is a natural and rational inference, So that, in reality, the proofs which are adduced in favour of the passive and active infallibility mutually prop up each other, or, to speak more correctly, they coalesce into one convincing argument of the proposition we are now considering.

======================================================

Catholic World, Vol. 42 (1885):

"It is true that what the church dispersed through the world teaches by her ordinary magistracy as of divine faith has an equal authority with her solemn teaching. Active infallibility is always in the teaching church, passive infallibility in the body of the faithful. The principal dogmas defined by the solemn acts of the church were explicitly taught and believed as of divine faith before the first oecuмenical council was convoked; and all the dogmas defined or definable have been objects of implicit faith from the days of the apostles. "

======================================================

The Dublin Review, Vol. 67 (1886):

"the Church's prerogative of passive infallibility will import, that Catholics can never be unanimous in holding any opinion, which either contradicts revealed truth or leads by legitimate consequence to such contradiction."

======================================================

The Creed Explained, or, An Exposition of Catholic Doctrine (1892)
Rev. Arthur Devine

"Passive infallibility is the gift of inerrancy, which is imparted to the Church believing (ecclesia credens) so that it may never, even in the least matter, believe or profess error in anything appertaining to faith "

======================================================

The Works of the Right Reverend John England: First Bishop of Charleston Vol. 1 (1908)
By Bishop John England, Archbishop Sebastian Gebhard Messmer

"The Infallibility of the Church is distinguished into active Infallibility and passive Infallibility. Active Infallibility resides in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whom Christ gave (Eph. iv) for the edification of his mystic body. Passive Infallibility belongs to the universal Church, which (I Tim. iii. 15.) is called "the pillar and ground of truth."

======================================================

Same phrase, but different meaning.  You have promoted the notion that the Church can never FAIL TO CONDEMN error.  This is not the same passive infallibility that's being treated of in the passages (which refer to the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens).

I told you to keep to the principle you professed, and comply when someone tells you to stay out of a person's thread. Again, stay out of my threads.

"to assert nothing contrary to the teachings of the Church, and to retract all such things when the Church shall so admonish."

Not that the Church always admonishes. Men can fail and men can err and they can do it in good faith or intentionally.

So, in the name of promoting a notion that contradicts the doctrine of EENS, contradicts Trent, contradicts Christ, contradicts scripture, contradicts Popes, contradicts reason, contradicts Catholic canons, makes the anonymous Christian not only possible but likely, promotes laxity in the laity, and otherwise makes obsolete every teaching the Church teaches for salvation, this Bumph character goes on to attempt to explain how it works. What is weird about that is that its not like there's only one contradiction with bod.  There are literally dozens, if not hundreds.  If bod was real, then the Catholic Church would be a very adept liar. Because the Catholic Church IS NOT a liar, there is no bod. Get over yourself Bumph, you lost.  Your doctrine is foul.  You've been proven wrong multiple times on EVERY single point. Time to accept it. Calling people "Feeneyites" will no longer provide you cover.  Bod has been exposed for the diabolical spin that it is.  We all get it.  You like the spin.  Ok, go spin somewhere. Catholics prefer the solid foundations of the Catholic Church, outside of which, there is no salvation.

Hi, I'm kind of new to BoD discussions. I've always thought them strange because in one of the decrees of Trent the little clause is added ",or at least the desire for it(baptism)." What is the refutation for that? I'm not smarting off, but I'm perplexed as I've not seen this one addressed. I think I must have missed a key thread or something, I know some of the people on here who profess that BoD is an error and they aren't idiots.