Author Topic: NADIEIMPORTANTE - Roman Catechism, Baptism Accident (Read 11430 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #60 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:30:43 AM »

Actually Nadie, Pope Pius VI didn't condemn it. THis is still an allowable position. What he said is that those who say:

"Those who believe infants who do not suffer fire are pelagian heretics."

are condemned.

HE NEVER CONDEMNED THE POSITION ITSELF, ONLY THOSE WHO SAID ANY OTHER POSITION WAS HERETICAL.

That is all. :)

Gregory I · « **Reply #61 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:26:12 AM »

So you deny the fallibility of human authors that are NOT part of the magisterium, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and you take no cognizance of the fact that Satan works to destroy the church by degrees, even through the innocent mistakes of others?

For it is enough for One person to make a mistake, and then another to adopt the mistake, even AFTER his position has been repudiated.

This is what St. Bernard did, and it is telling that Bernard not only believed in BOD, but he also believed that pelagian falsehood that an unbaptized child could attain to eternal life on the faith of its parents.

T Hat is what made St. Augustine great: He rejected comfortable "truths" that were illoogical and incompatible with the gospel for the hard truth which requires faith. Like predestination, reprobation, infant damnation and salvation through the saving waters of baptism absolutely and alone. These doctrines preserve the integrity of THE catholic dogma: EENS.

Almost without exception where BOD is present, there is some other theological quirk in the same writer. That is because of what it represents, and the kind of precedents it establishes:

"If God would allow this man by desire, well surely he would allow an infant..."

No. THIS is idle speculation.

Once again, it arises from hearts that have little faith.

BUT HUMOR ME:

Where do theologians UNANIMOUSLY teach that BOD is a truth revealed by God?

Where do the Fathers?

Where do the popes?

That's right, THEY DON'T. It's a tradition of men, the result of fruitless idle speculation.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #62 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:12:40 AM »

How many times will Pupatino get refuted before he actually addresses a legitimate objection put to him?

You know, there's a give and take in discussions like this. If you're just going to keep on rambling on with variations of the same points that have been refuted and you refuse to answer questions when you demand others answer questions, it's pretty much time to cut bait and go fish inmho.

Gregory I · « **Reply #63 on:** January 22, 2012, 04:39:29 PM »

Okay, so YOUR position is that AFTER a dogma is proclaimed, that the saints and doctor of the church cease to speak contrary to it? Otherwise they would not be saints.

Is that your position?

Gregory I · « **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2012, 01:00:06 AM »

I think you need to restate your position, because I cannot quite understand it. I think you are saying that since the saints are saints, and the church is not stupid, that when a Saint is canonoized, that means De Facto that they are not guilty of material heresy or error. Because the Church is Holy, it cannot give sanction to impious writings.

Well, I hate to burst your Bubble, but that is false.

Let me tell you why:

We have two saints from the same era that co-founded heresies:

St. John Cassian, and St. Vincent of Lerins. They both contributed to the founding of Semi-Pelagianism, after Pelagius had already been condemned. They disliked St. Augustine.

Regarding St. Vincent of Lerins Catholic Encyclopedia Says:

"He was a Semipelagian and so opposed to the doctrine of St. Augustine. It is believed now that he uses against Augustine his great principle: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Living in a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings show several points of doctrine akin to Casian or to Faustus of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses technical expressions similar to those employed by the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict XIV observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church."

Regarding St. John Cassian: Catholic Encyclopedia

"Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism. Views of this character attributed to him are found in his third and fifth, but especially in his thirteenth, "Conference". Preoccupied as he was with moral questions he exaggerated the rôle of free will by claiming that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. The teaching of Cassian on this point was a reaction against what he regarded as the exaggerations of St. Augustine in his treatise "De correptione et gratia" as to the irresistible power of grace and predestination."

So here you have two saints in the Church who are considered the founders of a heresy.

I think your theory just exploded.

Saints are canonized for the HOLINESS OF THEIR LIFE, not for crossing every t and dotting every i theologically speaking, although that must always be considered.