Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: One-on-one Discussion  (Read 3181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Augustinus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Reputation: +21/-38
  • Gender: Male
Re: One-on-one Discussion
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2017, 11:13:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 04, 2017, 11:06:20 AM
    All you are doing now is ignoring my arguments and sources, and stating things that you want to believe.
    Not at all, I understand your argument, but the source is false on its face because the two princes of Theologians, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus don't accept it, so the unanimity is something claimed, not demonstrated. I don't accept those kinds of claims when I know for a fact the very key theologians that all theologians reference don't accept that.
    Neither did the theologian Vitoria that was posted in the other thread, the one who wrote on the fate of Native American Indians in invincible Ignorance, and for that matter neither Did Hugh of St. Victor and the early scholastics who argued that those dying in invincible ignorance die culpable damned for the willfulness of that ignorance.
    Logged
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #31 on: April 04, 2017, 11:33:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • As you know, theologians develop for the Church, and that which was more undecided, becomes decided. We will have to revisit this.

    How about the Holy Office allowing priests to offer Mass privately for non-Catholics who appears in good faith in their errors?  Do you reject that?
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #32 on: April 05, 2017, 09:01:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Augustinus on April 03, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
    There are certain articles of faith that can be held implicitly in the confession of more necessary articles.
    Now, the Holy Office has said that the Trinity and Incarnation are articles necessary by a necessity of means, and therefore cannot be held implicitly.
     
    Now that this discussion seems to be winding down, I thought I would comment. I've followed the discussion all the way through, and have also read through numerous Catholic books with imprimatur that discuss this subject. The bottom line is, I could not find a single reference to a requirement that knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is mandatory for those invincibly ignorant with implicit desire for baptism. This makes total sense given that someone living in an area where the gospel has not been preached, with only the Natural Law to go by, could not possibly come to the knowledge of these. The quote that was provided by Bumphrey was certainly the clincher in this discussion.

     
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #33 on: April 05, 2017, 10:28:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on April 05, 2017, 09:01:02 AM
    I could not find a single reference to a requirement that knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is mandatory for those invincibly ignorant with implicit desire for baptism.
     
    :laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #34 on: April 05, 2017, 10:28:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • bosco and Bumphrey, you are both heretics.  I do not recognize you as Catholic and will not be responding to you going forward.
    Logged

    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +21/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #35 on: April 05, 2017, 11:06:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on April 05, 2017, 09:01:02 AM

    Now that this discussion seems to be winding down, I thought I would comment. I've followed the discussion all the way through, and have also read through numerous Catholic books with imprimatur that discuss this subject. The bottom line is, I could not find a single reference to a requirement that knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is mandatory for those invincibly ignorant with implicit desire for baptism. This makes total sense given that someone living in an area where the gospel has not been preached, with only the Natural Law to go by, could not possibly come to the knowledge of these. The quote that was provided by Bumphrey was certainly the clincher in this discussion.

     
    You don't read Denzinger? Lol. To define an article of faith as necessary by a necessity of means MEANS that there is no way around it.
    Logged
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #36 on: April 05, 2017, 12:32:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Augustinus, you need to say whether you accept the permission of the Holy Office about priests offering Mass privately for non-Catholics if they discerned they died with good will in their errors..
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +21/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #37 on: April 05, 2017, 04:04:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 05, 2017, 12:32:05 PM
    Augustinus, you need to say whether you accept the permission of the Holy Office about priests offering Mass privately for non-Catholics if they discerned they died with good will in their errors..
    Link? I never read that before.
    Logged
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #38 on: April 05, 2017, 05:25:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Reference
    Catholic Encyclopedia (1908):

    "For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jєωs and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory."
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +21/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #39 on: April 05, 2017, 10:35:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Well certainly I accept that, only a fool would reject a ruling of the Holy Office.

    But to do so presupposes you believe them to be in good faith, and that good faith gives one hope Christ would enlighten them at their death, as he did the mother of Fr. Augustine Berry, a Jєωess, who at the time of death converted to Christ.

    No one bypasses Christ in this life ever.

    That's the basis of hope. It really doesn't relate to what Christ enlightens them to believe in their final moments, and the few revelations we have on the matter clearly show he enlightens them in the matter of the four articles. A Jєω already believes in God as creator of supernatural, a rewarder of good, but they must confess Christ, and therefore the Trinity.
    Logged
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #40 on: April 06, 2017, 04:01:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Always a claim about what was not said, as if each time the author just didn't really know how to articulate the complete important truth on that very matter! Yet, when an imprimatured work does articulate in detail, and that detail actually supports what is not said, you reject it as wrong.

    So, (your position obviously maintains) here we have the Holy Office, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, both failing to stipulate a most crucially important point making what they say obviously leave the reader NOT to have what you consider the most important truth on that matter. Here, a failure to stipulate that if the priest was at the deathbed of that heretic and only heard a denial of the Trinity, and saw the person die, that he should not say Mass for his soul. To boot, at least for the average Feeneyite, failure to see water miraculous appear to flow on dying person's head as they expire!

    I know you like things to be simple, but this constant claim that authors all failed to explain a most crucial truth while covering the subject, is just plainly a silly complication constantly thrown into the mix against what is obviously being said.
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #41 on: April 06, 2017, 07:57:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Augustinus, Nado (aka Bumphrey) is not of good will.  You're wasting your time discussing anything with him.  He's not seeking the truth but simply wants to promote his agenda.  He's a heretic and a schismatic.  Avoid him like the plague that he is.
    Logged

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #42 on: April 06, 2017, 09:51:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Augustinus, of course an imprimatured book could be wrong. It is rare, but it does happen. When one is found, it was one that did not make further approvals for printing. 

    However, the quote I gave from a book was just a snippet. In full, it was a very thorough treatment of the subject, including a footnote specifically about the quote from the Holy Office we discussed earlier, and why the Holy Office demanded teaching of the Trinity and Incarnation before baptizing.

    The bottom line is, I gave an approved Catholic sources approved by an Archbishop. If you are going to say it is wrong, you will need to come up with an equivalent, or better, source that covers the very same points just as thoroughly WHERE you find it diametrically opposed. If you are correct, there MUST be such a theological source that is explicitly opposed, not something you try to reason is opposed.
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 91
    • Reputation: +21/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #43 on: April 06, 2017, 04:30:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 06, 2017, 04:01:18 AM
    Always a claim about what was not said, as if each time the author just didn't really know how to articulate the complete important truth on that very matter! Yet, when an imprimatured work does articulate in detail, and that detail actually supports what is not said, you reject it as wrong.

    So, (your position obviously maintains) here we have the Holy Office, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, both failing to stipulate a most crucially important point making what they say obviously leave the reader NOT to have what you consider the most important truth on that matter. Here, a failure to stipulate that if the priest was at the deathbed of that heretic and only heard a denial of the Trinity, and saw the person die, that he should not say Mass for his soul. To boot, at least for the average Feeneyite, failure to see water miraculous appear to flow on dying person's head as they expire!

    I know you like things to be simple, but this constant claim that authors all failed to explain a most crucial truth while covering the subject, is just plainly a silly complication constantly thrown into the mix against what is obviously being said.
    Now, you are making a logical jump:
    I never said anybody failed to do anything. The simple fact is that the Church teaches many things in many places and sometimes will say things in shorthand, but you are taking the shorthand as a complete and full explanation. I am saying that is unwarranted.
    For example, again, what does it mean to have hope that a person died in good faith?
    Does it mean to hope they were saved by their ignorance? No, ignorance is not salvific. And we know that Supernatural catholic faith is necessary by a necessity of means, and that it includes a minimal belief in the articles of faith which are declared necessary by a necessity of means and which can therefore admit of no exceptions.
    Therefore we most hope that those who die in good faith died as adherents to the Catholic faith. Indeed, this is necessary because outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, there is no remission of sins. For them to have had their sins remitted it is necessary that they put their faith in Christ.
    I am not saying the Holy Office is wrong or incomplete. I am accusing you of not filling in the blanks and taking shorthand explanations for exhaustive definitions which are unjustified and lead to contradictions.
    Logged
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +226/-662
    • Gender: Male
    Re: One-on-one Discussion
    « Reply #44 on: April 06, 2017, 06:03:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Augustinus on April 06, 2017, 04:30:51 PM
    Now, you are making a logical jump:
    I never said anybody failed to do anything. The simple fact is that the Church teaches many things in many places and sometimes will say things in shorthand, but you are taking the shorthand as a complete and full explanation. I am saying that is unwarranted.
    For example, again, what does it mean to have hope that a person died in good faith?
    Does it mean to hope they were saved by their ignorance? No, ignorance is not salvific. And we know that Supernatural catholic faith is necessary by a necessity of means, and that it includes a minimal belief in the articles of faith which are declared necessary by a necessity of means and which can therefore admit of no exceptions.
    Therefore we most hope that those who die in good faith died as adherents to the Catholic faith. Indeed, this is necessary because outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, there is no remission of sins. For them to have had their sins remitted it is necessary that they put their faith in Christ.
    I am not saying the Holy Office is wrong or incomplete. I am accusing you of not filling in the blanks and taking shorthand explanations for exhaustive definitions which are unjustified and lead to contradictions.

    Fine, there are some shorthand things. Most theological works, however, are not shorthand. Sorry, but in a discussion such as this controversy, shorthand will not do.

    Find and quote something that is as long-hand as the quote I gave from the theology book that was approved by an archbishop that you say is wrong. I really am just repeating myself now, but this is what you need to do to prove your case. I have sufficiently supported my stand exactly, and I didn't even know that book existed until this week!
    Logged
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
    « previous next »