bosco, is that you?

 :roll-laugh1:

bosco, is that you?

 :roll-laugh1:

Why laugh until you get the answer?  The answer is "no", I am not bosco. Now what?

Even if LoT, bosco, and now Bumphrey are not the same person, they all know each other and are CMRI lackeys who have been brainwashed into an utter contempt for the EENS dogma.  Very few are more zealously anti-EENS than the CMRI.  These 3 tag-team into this forum just to troll.  So, for instance, LoT disappeared the EXACT day that bosco appeared and started his voluminous posting.  That's too much of a coincidence.

bosco gets painted into a logical corner (again) and now Bumphrey shows up to his rescue.

Thank you for admitting that I came to the "rescue". Now you need to ACTUALLY address what I wrote.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Even if LoT, bosco, and now Bumphrey are not the same person, they all know each other and are CMRI lackeys who have been brainwashed into an utter contempt for the EENS dogma.  Very few are more zealously anti-EENS than the CMRI.  These 3 tag-team into this forum just to troll.  So, for instance, LoT disappeared the EXACT day that bosco appeared and started his voluminous posting.  That's too much of a coincidence.

bosco gets painted into a logical corner (again) and now Bumphrey shows up to his rescue.

Thank you for admitting that I came to the "rescue". Now you need to ACTUALLY address what I wrote.

I did.  You guys are mentally challenged.  Your gnostic formulation denies Trent's dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  It should be against Canon Law for people of your intellectual caliber to even attempt theology.

I don't know if you have serious mental issues, but you constantly claim that no one has "addressed" what you wrote when the response is plain to see just a couple posts up here.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Ladislaus

Even if LoT, bosco, and now Bumphrey are not the same person, they all know each other and are CMRI lackeys who have been brainwashed into an utter contempt for the EENS dogma.  Very few are more zealously anti-EENS than the CMRI.  These 3 tag-team into this forum just to troll.  So, for instance, LoT disappeared the EXACT day that bosco appeared and started his voluminous posting.  That's too much of a coincidence.

bosco gets painted into a logical corner (again) and now Bumphrey shows up to his rescue.

Thank you for admitting that I came to the "rescue". Now you need to ACTUALLY address what I wrote.

I did.  You guys are mentally challenged.  Your gnostic formulation denies Trent's dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  It should be against Canon Law for people of your intellectual caliber to even attempt theology.

I don't know if you have serious mental issues, but you constantly claim that no one has "addressed" what you wrote when the response is plain to see just a couple posts up here.

All you do here is make a response like a parrot as if you never even saw the post I posted. What you need to do, to look even a little bit intellectual, is to respond about how my Scriptual analogies are incorrect. You can't.

Let me give prime examples from Holy Scripture. Everyone knows that Our Lord Jesus Christ (God) showed us that even if a person doesn't actually physically kill another person, his hatred alone is considered "murder". As well, Our Lord said that even if a person hasn't physically done anythinbg, his lust is considered "adultery".

In both cases, an unseen, willful mental act sufficed to ESSENTIALLY signify that a person is a murderer or adulterer, even though there was no dead body, nor woman who was touched.

Bumpkin alleges that, because in the moral realm guilt can be imputed simply for the formal intention to commit a sin, so the desire for a Sacrament is equivalent to receiving the Sacrament itself [there's a great quote from St. Gregory nαzιanzen that addresses this].  Bumpkin uses gibberish term "ESSENTIALLY signify".  What do you mean "signify"?  In fact, the intention to commit a mortal sin itself contitutes a mortal sin and renders the person a sinner.  There's nothing "signified".  You threw the terms out there with absolutely no comprehension of what they mean.  Do you know the philosophical/theological meaning of the word "essence"?  I thought not.

Even in the moral realm this argument fails, because the act itself when combined with the intention always renders the sin MORE grave.  One might sin by having the desire/intention to commit adultery but one sins more gravely by actually committing the sin.  All Catholic moral theologians hold that the intention and the actual commission of the sin are not entirely equivalent.

Nevertheless, this is in the moral realm.  When it comes to the economy of salvation, we do not WILL ourselves to salvation or DESIRE ourselves to salvation.  That's Pelagianism.

Finally, the Council of Trent taught that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, and all Catholic theologians teach this to mean absolute necessity of means.  Consequently there can be NO SALVATION without the Sacraments.

If you believe in BoD, in order to avoid heresy, you cannot say that, in the case of BoD, people are saved without the Sacraments, but you must state that they receive the Sacraments in voto.  It is not the DESIRE that saves, but the Sacrament that saves, acting THROUGH their desire.  To claim that DESIRE is salvific is Pelagianism.

But this probably makes as much sense to these morons as Sanskrit might.  I never thought I would miss LoT, but he at least actually understood (even if distorted) these basic philosophical terms and distinctions.

Let's see what everyone thinks of this scenario:

God creates a soul in a baby boy in Asia, whose parents are not Catholic. Because of this, he never receives baptism with water. As he passes the age of reason and approaches age 9, he is very pious, strictly obeys the natural law, and has perfect contrition for all the sins of his short life so far. His primary disadvantage at this point is that he is in invincible ignorance of the Catholic faith, simply trusting and obeying his parents as God would expect him to up to this point.

Now if this young boy of age 9 is suddenly killed in an accident, not yet having had the chance to even begin exploring where the true Church lies, do you truly believe that an ALL JUST God would damn this boy for all eternity to the fires of hell, when it is God Himself who placed this boy in this non-Catholic family, not even giving this boy the slightest chance of finding out about Catholicism? If you say yes, then you are saying that God is not just - that He unjustly damns souls through no fault of their own.

Pope Pius IX plainly shows this boy would likely be saved through implicit baptism. This interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense given that God is all just:

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

You are saying that God is not omnipotent.  If that boy was truly of good will, then God would not let him die until he has been shown the faith, either through a missionary or an angel.  You are saying that God cannot control who lives or dies. You reject God himself.