Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 17132 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #60 on:** February 27, 2024, 06:03:38 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 27, 2024, 02:46:14 AM

Apology accepted.

I am sorry for being inflammatory as well.

And your apology accepted. Let's hope we can have a good discussion without any more of that. Let it be a Lenten breakthrough.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** February 27, 2024, 06:34:51 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 27, 2024, 02:46:14 AM

Let's look at the quote again:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."

At another point in the Catechism, it states that Our Lord was the first to enter Heaven at His Ascension. I suppose the two could be reconciled in that the gates of Heaven were open after His Resurrection, but all deferred to Our Lord to be the first one to enter. After all, it would be fitting that Our Lord lead them into Heaven and go there first. So I'll have to disagree with Lapide there for about a half dozen reasons.

Why does this even matter? This whole thing started because DR felt that it invalidated something the Dimonds said, even though all the Dimonds said was that the Good Thief (Dismas) was no proof for Baptism of Desire.

And even with regard to their thesis (held, as they demonstrated, by quite a few Church Fathers ... and they missed a solid quote I've seen before from St. Ephrem the Syrian), even if Dismas went to Heaven "that day" (which I think is highly unlikely), that still doesn't preclude his having been baptized first, before entering.

Oh, another problem with Lapide's interpretation, where he claims that Dismas went to Heaven before Our Lord did, Our Lord did say that you will "WITH ME" this day in Paradise, implying that Our Lord would be there also.

Let's just move along here, because the Dismas question is entirely irrelevant.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #62 on:** February 27, 2024, 07:08:28 AM »

Quote

So I was reading your response and I was confused how in the world you are reconciling the fact that Christ opened Heaven with His resurrection for every single child of Adam with the notion that St. Dismas entered Heaven before the Resurrection.

But then I got to your last paragraph: Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths.

You freely admit you don't believe that logic applies to theology.

Marulus,

No, I definitely did not say logic didn't apply to our discussions of theology. Indeed, it does. And I was applying logic in talking as follows about exceptions, divine exceptions:

Quote

Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths. The One who gives the rules and truths their general application to begin with can do that.

The rules only have their meaning as established by God. If He declares, or works, exceptions to His rules, there is no ground for objection, since the ground ("what God has established") proves the truth of any exception He wills.

Here's one of the more clear examples, from the Gospel of John:

Quote

John 6:39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

God said of all given, none would be lost in John 6:39. But we are told Judas was given, and lost as well. Many translations of John 17:12, other Catholic translations say "except the son of perdition," highlighting my argument about divine exceptions.

St. Dismas, like Judas, is an exception or fulfillment that departs from a general rule, "that the scripture may be fulfilled." In this instance, the scripture is Luke 12:43 - "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

I am being logical looking at the factual data (the scriptural testimony) and saying God determines the rules and their exceptions, without contradiction, as the creator of the rules who builds the exceptions in. Again, He can do that.

We could get into a very deep discussion about the nature of God here, but we'll stay on point. Perhaps later.

Quote

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."

There are a number of responses to this. The first one that jumps out at me has some irony behind it, as you constantly quote the Dimonds and seem to agree with them on most things. The standard Feeneyite/Dimond argument is, "this is in a fallible catechism." This is usually made in response to this prominent example from the same Catechism of Trent:

Quote

“But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”

Now the Dimonds concede that this passage speaks of BoD. They have a number objections to it, of course, but they concede that the Catechism talks about BoD there. One of their objections is the aforementioned "catechisms are not infallible."

Now, I can, quite logically, dismiss the passage about the gates of heaven being closed "against every child of Adam" before Christ's Resurrection on the same basis: it's not infallible, and its statement on heaven being closed "against every child of Adam" before Christ's Resurrection can be dismissed as well as the Catechism's statement on BoD - on the basis of the Dimonds' (and your) own premises.

Are you being logical in basing your position on a statement in a docuмent you dismiss as fallible?

You argue that there is a higher authority upon which you reject the Catechism on BoD - John 3:5, and infallible Magisterial statements as you understand them. Well, as you know, while I would not say the Catechism is in error in stating the general rule of heaven being closed to men prior to Christ's Ascension (and not mentioning St. Dismas), I do say, as you know, that a higher authority, Scripture, says St. Dismas went to heaven the day of his death. But again, for me, that doesn't mean I think the Catechism is in error in stating the general rule without talking about St. Dismas.

Quote

Essentially you're saying that the dogma no one is saved outside the Church still holds true even if there is in fact one really good Jєω who was saved outside the Church.

This is how the Pharisees made void all the commandments of God.

No. I am not aware of a "divine exception" that someone after the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ will be saved without faith in Him so "that the Scripture be fulfilled."

So, no, I am not saying that, and that does not follow from my argument.

That is not very logical, Marulus.

**** In drafting this I saw Lad's post about "moving on," which is fine with me. Either way.****

DecemRationis · « **Reply #63 on:** February 27, 2024, 07:20:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 27, 2024, 06:34:51 AM

At another point in the Catechism, it states that Our Lord was the first to enter Heaven at His Ascension. I suppose the two could be reconciled in that the gates of Heaven were open after His Resurrection, but all deferred to Our Lord to be the first one to enter. After all, it would be fitting that Our Lord lead them into Heaven and go there first. So I'll have to disagree with Lapide there for about a half dozen reasons.

Why does this even matter? This whole thing started because DR felt that it invalidated something the Dimonds said, even though all the Dimonds said was that the Good Thief (Dismas) was no proof for Baptism of Desire.

And even with regard to their thesis (held, as they demonstrated, by quite a few Church Fathers ... and they missed a solid quote I've seen before from St. Ephrem the Syrian), even if Dismas went to Heaven "that day" (which I think is highly unlikely), that still doesn't preclude his having been baptized first, before entering.

Oh, another problem with Lapide's interpretation, where he claims that Dismas went to Heaven before Our Lord did, Our Lord did say that you will "WITH ME" this day in Paradise, implying that Our Lord would be there also.

Let's just move along here, because the Dismas question is entirely irrelevant.

I don't want to beat what may be a dead horse, but Christ was always in heaven, and there in His divinity to greet Dismas, as noted by Haydock on Luke 23:43 :

Quote

The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham's bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.

Let us say, "one can take either position."

My point was the Dimonds make it sound like the door is closed on using St. Dismas in support of BoD by the example of Christ opening heaven by His Ascension or Resurrection. That is not the case if St. Dismas entered heaven that day, which is one perfectly Catholic viewpoint. The Dimonds fall short of "proof."

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 17132 times)

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments