Author Topic: Implicit Faith - Defying the Law of Non-contradiction at Every Turn (Read 37479 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:06:21 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

BoD and Anonymous Christianity have never been taught anywhere in the Church before rationalism started creeping in.

Those are two entirely different subjects. Baptism of Desire is very old.

Now if someone wants to appeal to the supposed "logic" of the Feeneyites (their quoting of the Council of Florence for example) then the issue is whether or not Baptism of Desire exists at all, not the sort of Divine Faith, explicit or implicit, that is required.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:12:24 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
BoD and Anonymous Christianity have never been taught anywhere in the Church before rationalism started creeping in.

Those are two entirely different subjects. Baptism of Desire is very old.

Now if someone wants to appeal to the supposed "logic" of the Feeneyites (their quoting of the Council of Florence for example) then the issue is whether or not Baptism of Desire exists at all, not the sort of Divine Faith, explicit or implicit, that is required.

BoD isn't very old. It's a novelty. And implicit desire is very recent indeed.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:17:09 PM »

Quote from: Man of the West

I may perhaps weigh in with a longer post later. For now I just wish to say that Telesphorus is right here.

Nadieimportante has a very studious mind, and I applaud the care he takes in lining up his sources and disposing his arguments. However, all that effort is wasted by his inability to see that his sources are not actually making the case he claims for them. This is an ignoratio elenchi[/i] fallacy.

IE fallacy introduces irrelevant material into the discussion, which ironically, is what you're doing here.

Augustinian · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:32:17 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception

People who worship Aquinas refuse to admit that he erred big time on this issue. He was one of the main reasons why it took so long for the Immaculate Conception to be dogmatically defined. The fact of the matter is that he did deny it:

Summa Theologica, Vol. 4, Pt. 3, Q. 14, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 1: "The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin, and therefore contracted these defects."

Quote from: Telesphorus

This isn't a matter of something that hasn't been formulated yet. The deniers of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are claiming that the Church teaching authority hasn't correctly interpreted its infallibly defined doctrines or corrected its most eminent theologians, and that this has gone on for centuries.

The teaching authority is the Magisterium. The word 'magisterium', used by the Vatican Council, means 'teaching authority'. The theologians are not the Magisterium (and if they were, then the Magisterium would be contradictory and schizophrenic), so the "teaching authority" has not "incorrectly interpreted its infallibly defined doctrines."

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:46:56 PM »

Quote from: Augustinian

People who worship Aquinas

While I admit that St. Thomas Aquinas' stance on the Immaculate Conception wasn't exactly spot-on, who here "worships" him? Do you have some sort of problem with every single Saint in Church history? I saw you cut down Pope St. Pius X earlier today...