Author Topic: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD  (Read 2808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13482
  • Reputation: +6955/-1655
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2017, 08:34:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus: “If anyone still holds to BoD, they MUST state that BoD removes all temporal punishment [/b]due to sin in the same way that Baptism does.”[/size]

    Please tell me exactly why one MUST reject St. Alphonsus' view that BOD does not remove all temporal punishment, and what is the consequence if that person does not?  

    Again you demonstrate your lack of capacity for logical reasoning.  I am hereby simply pointing out the contradiction of those who back St. Alphonsus' claim that the Pope Innocent documents are authoritative when St. Alphonsus contradicts one of the Pope Innocent documents.

    St. Alphonsus' position is a theological error (that's the theological note) ... because it implicitly contradicts the teaching of Trent regarding the nature of regeneration in initial justification and it also contradicts the Pope Innocent letter.  If one accepts the Alphonsus position, he's objectively guilty of serious theological error.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13482
    • Reputation: +6955/-1655
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #61 on: October 06, 2017, 08:35:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I get that they aren't always the most pleasant lads sometimes, but whenever I ask for specifics on these allegations I get bupkis, which only leads me to find suspect those making the charges.

    So, how about you Ladi? They've got mountains of material to scrutinize; what, exactly, are you referring to?

    I don't mean to intrude on a convo I'm personally sick of, but people talk a lot of trash about them, and I'd like to know why.

    So, do us all a work of mercy and show us please or be the better man and stop saying it.

    What specific point are you referring to?  Honestly, in half your posts, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're trying to say.


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2931
    • Reputation: +736/-774
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #62 on: October 06, 2017, 08:38:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • What specific point are you referring to?  Honestly, in half your posts, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're trying to say.
    The Dimonds. What you wrote? I don't know how to make it any simpler man.

    Back up what you say, or stop saying it. If someone was talking trash about you, esp. when you aren't around to defend yourself, then I would say the same to the person saying it just like now.

    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13482
    • Reputation: +6955/-1655
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #63 on: October 06, 2017, 08:40:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Dimonds. What you wrote? I don't know how to make it any simpler man.

    Which part of what I wrote?  What point?  I wrote a lot of things.  Narrow it down, man.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13482
    • Reputation: +6955/-1655
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #64 on: October 06, 2017, 08:41:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If someone was talking trash about you, esp. when you aren't around to defend yourself, then I would say the same to the person saying it just like now.

    Catholictrue is most likely one of the Dimonds.  What "trash" am I talking?  Call it out specifically.


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2931
    • Reputation: +736/-774
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #65 on: October 06, 2017, 08:46:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholictrue is most likely one of the Dimonds.  What "trash" am I talking?  Call it out specifically.
    Never mind. 
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #66 on: October 06, 2017, 08:51:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholictrue is most likely one of the Dimonds.  What "trash" am I talking?  Call it out specifically.
    What will it matter if CatholicTrue is one of the Dimonds?
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13482
    • Reputation: +6955/-1655
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #67 on: October 06, 2017, 12:38:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What will it matter if CatholicTrue is one of the Dimonds?

    DZ said that I was attacking the Dimonds without their having the chance to defend themselves, but that's not true if Catholictrue is one of them.

    Follow the conversation, man, would you?


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #68 on: October 06, 2017, 02:25:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Follow the conversation, man, would you?
    Whoa there, settle down big guy. I read into your comment too much, my bad.

    What happens when someone pertinaciously holds and refuses to reject in light of Dogma, a serious theological error?
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #69 on: October 07, 2017, 03:32:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tornpage,  

    As I showed in my previous posts, you don't read with much comprehension, as a result of the fog you are in.  Your latest post is a further illustration of that fact.  I am not saying that Bellarmine was schismatic.  He wasn't.  I'm making the point that according to the fallacious argumentation set forth here by you and Ladislaus, to be consistent you would have to consider Bellarmine to be schismatic or consider subsequent members of Roman Congregations and Pope Benedict XV to be heretical.  The points I made are not only relevant; they cut to the heart of your error.  
    Catholic True,

    Your inordinate intellectual pride and contempt for authority causes you to be blind to obvious facts that would prevent you from making ridiculous arguments, facts I pointed out. Perhaps you do this to cover for some deep deficiency, which would explain your immediate and totally unnecessary descent into ad hominem and the belittling of others.

    I’ll repeat some of the obvious as you keep tripping over yourself in attempts to be ingenious.

    A man, any man much less a saint, cannot commit heresy acting or by thinking on an issue of Catholic faith or belief if he acts in union with the Holy Office and with the agreement/authority of the pope. Neither can he commit schism when acting in union with the Holy Office and the pope.

    This should make you realize immediately that there are a number of problems with your argument, perhaps because of some peculiarity of the issue involved (heliocentrism) which makes it distinct from the situation you’re trying to analogize it to, or because perhaps you are equating things that are not equal, such as an erroneous claim of heresy with a denial of Catholic dogma, as Ladislaus pointed out.

    To add another obvious fact that you overlook: any actions or claims of St. Robert regarding heliocentrism obviously preceded any action by the Church to the effect that heliocentrism was not a heresy.  His error was therefore clearly not heresy, not being a denial of any existing “dogma” or belief of the Church.  The Church, in reviewing his works and “error” prior to his sainthood, would have seen a man acting on behalf of the Holy Office and the pope on a critical issue of the day. This is different from a “heretical” opinion being expressed on a previsiously defined Catholic dogma concerning baptism.

    You have to be able to see that. Then again . . .

    You insist on equating the two and making your ridiculous analogy and then strut around like a rooster in a chicken coop – while crowing about how the men watching you are stupid and not up to your game.

    Now let's see if we can have an intelligent and charitable conversation, and stop the ad hominem.

    Was geocentrism a defined dogma when Pope Benedict or subsequent Roman Congregations permitted a contrary theory (heliocentrism) to be discussed or even entertained the possibility of its truth? Did St. Robert in allowing for BOD act after defined dogmatic pronouncements contrary to his position and showing it to be heretical? Is calling someone a heretic the same thing as believing heresy oneself?

    The inverse relation between your pride and charity puts you in ugly company, but you still have time to try to amend.

    How about now?

    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13482
    • Reputation: +6955/-1655
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #70 on: October 07, 2017, 04:12:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • What happens when someone pertinaciously holds and refuses to reject in light of Dogma, a serious theological error?

    That depends on the degree of logical separation from said dogma.  That's what's known as the theological notes.  There are many degrees of error short of heresy.

    BoD I don't even consider "error" per se, but rather a theological speculation which cannot be proven.  Those who hold BoD correctly (e.g. St. Robert Bellarmine) make distinctions that preserve the core teachings of the Church regarding ecclesiology and Sacramental theology.  But it's pure speculation, and when the proper distinctions are not made (as 99.999% of BoDers do NOT make these distinctions), it almost invariably involves heresy.

    But I just find it unthinkable that the Church could declare someone a Doctor of the Church when he taught heresy.  No, there's no strict guarantee, theologically speaking, so call it a pious belief.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #71 on: October 08, 2017, 09:16:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That depends on the degree of logical separation from said dogma.  That's what's known as the theological notes.  There are many degrees of error short of heresy.

    BoD I don't even consider "error" per se, but rather a theological speculation which cannot be proven.  Those who hold BoD correctly (e.g. St. Robert Bellarmine) make distinctions that preserve the core teachings of the Church regarding ecclesiology and Sacramental theology.  But it's pure speculation, and when the proper distinctions are not made (as 99.999% of BoDers do NOT make these distinctions), it almost invariably involves heresy.

    But I just find it unthinkable that the Church could declare someone a Doctor of the Church when he taught heresy.  No, there's no strict guarantee, theologically speaking, so call it a pious belief.
    I wonder why this is so hard to understand? BoD held correctly requires distinctions (which is speculation)...I have often contemplated if any of the fathers who made these distinctions believed in reality it has ever happened, other then to state a variable? I myself do not...while keeping open the possibility that a catechumen with explicit faith and the proper dispositions could be "reputed" by God to have received the full benefits of the sacrament.

    There is no doubt that the modern day version of BoD is heresy, and in actuality destroys the visibility of the Church. If there are Jews walking around objectively blaspheming the Blessed Trinity while at the same time subjectively in a state of grace, what does that say about the visibility of the Catholic Church???



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16