Author Topic: The Roman Catechism (Read 5417 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #30 on:** June 07, 2010, 10:54:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Someone was kind enough to send me the original Latin, and this passage in Trent represents yet another butchered translation (probably to further an agenda).

Quote
...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint

There's nothing here whatsoever about "impossibility", as the Latin impediat means to hindred or obstruct. It's actually rather bad Latin, but the sense is clear. It should be translated as follows:

"[these proper dispositions] would suffice to see them through any sudden event/mishap that might get in the way of their being able to be cleansed/washed with the saving water", see them through "to grace and justice" -- I just put that last part last not to interrupt the flow.

In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** June 07, 2010, 10:56:14 PM »

Quote

In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

Quote

should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

Caminus · « **Reply #32 on:** June 07, 2010, 10:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.

Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.

That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:04:57 PM »

Yes, "impossible" is completely wrong. impediat means, like the English, to impede, get in the way, hinder. At the Latin root you'll find the word "foot", implying being tripped or tangled up.

And "accident" also in English implies death, when the Latin casus just means some happening (with usually negative connotation. Comes from the word to "fall". So it's more like the English "befall" (which also has the same negative connotation).

And the phrase "satis sit ad" does not mean will "avail to" but just literally means "will be enough to (with an implied sense of motion) grace and justice", meaning it will be enough to get you through/past the obstacle to the other side (grace and justice).

Interesting that the Catechism does not list the usual three amigos of Baptisms--which, again, one would expect if that's what it ACTUALLY meant as opposed to what people would like for it to mean.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:08:06 PM »

So, Caminus, you never answered my question.

Do you know Latin? After all, you promoted Daly's denunciation of the Dimonds on the grounds that the Dimonds do not know Latin and were therefore not competent to theologize publicly.

So do you either reject Daly's opinion or will you admit that you are not competent to debate these matters?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:09:17 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

Quote
should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

Your point? I already indicated that it's a horrible translation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:10:50 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Caminus
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.

Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.

That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?

Is the statement that there's no grace outisde the Church an error or is it not? I will cite the papal condemnation for you if you'd like.

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:11:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, "impossible" is completely wrong. impediat means, like the English, to impede, get in the way, hinder. At the Latin root you'll find the word "foot", implying being tripped or tangled up.

And "accident" also in English implies death, when the Latin casus just means some happening (with usually negative connotation. Comes from the word to "fall". So it's more like the English "befall" (which also has the same negative connotation).

And the phrase "satis sit ad" does not mean will "avail to" but just literally means "will be enough to (with an implied sense of motion) grace and justice", meaning it will be enough to get you through/past the obstacle to the other side (grace and justice).

Interesting that the Catechism does not list the usual three amigos of Baptisms--which, again, one would expect if that's what it ACTUALLY meant as opposed to what people would like for it to mean.

A linguistic distinction without a real difference.

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:16:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So, Caminus, you never answered my question.

Do you know Latin? After all, you promoted Daly's denunciation of the Dimonds on the grounds that the Dimonds do not know Latin and were therefore not competent to theologize publicly.

So do you either reject Daly's opinion or will you admit that you are not competent to debate these matters?

First of all, he criticized their understanding of Latin because they were attempting to pass of "true interpretations" of Latin. Thus, it was a legitimate ad hominem directly relating to a point. Secondly, did you catch Dimond's little gem where they attempted to assert that Daly couldn't comment on theological matters because he was married?

You are the one in fact who is resting his case on a novel interpretation and your use of Latin. Not I. I simply follow the doctors of theologians of the Church. Ergo, my knowledge of Latin is immaterial. But you on the other hand, needed to sell yourself. Its just too bad you didn't take as many theology and philosophy classes. Of course, that probably wouldn't help the real fundamental problem that you have which is primarily of the will.

Are you going to interact with the OP or not?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:16:31 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.

OK, you're sounding ridiculouser and ridiculouser with every post (a sign of desperation).

First of all, the listed translation and my translation are not "opposites".

Secondly, my translation is different than the translation you listed, not "THE WORDS". You'll see "THE WORDS" in the Latin I cited.

So you go through the Latin then and explain how my translation means the opposite of the Latin words.

Have you stopped to think even for a moment that it might be YOU who's turning everything into the opposite of what it means through your sophistries just like the enemies of the Church (with whom you appear to be in league)?

Caminus · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:17:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Caminus
Oh yeah, go ahead and cite those alleged "errors and contradictions," after you address my post directly.

Sure, the Catechism states that there can be no grace outside the Church (a condemned error). I'm sure it MEANT "sanctifying grace", but that's a pretty serious misstatement there.

That's your evidence of "errors and contradictions"?

Is the statement that there's no grace outisde the Church an error or is it not? I will cite the papal condemnation for you if you'd like.

How 'bout citing the relevant passage from the Catechism for starters?

Caminus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2010, 11:21:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
Ah yes! The meaning is precisely the opposite of what the words say! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The irony seems rather that you are not lacking in issuing your own meaningless tautologies in order to save your opinions.

OK, you're sounding ridiculouser and ridiculouser with every post (a sign of desperation).

First of all, the listed translation and my translation are not "opposites".

Secondly, my translation is different than the translation you listed, not "THE WORDS". You'll see "THE WORDS" in the Latin I cited.

So you go through the Latin then and explain how my translation means the opposite of the Latin words.

Have you stopped to think even for a moment that it might be YOU who's turning everything into the opposite of what it means through your sophistries just like the enemies of the Church (with whom you appear to be in league)?

It was opposite. The whole point of the words was to convey the idea that adults can receive baptism of desire in place of the sacrament. You say it means rather that nothing will stop them from receiving the sacrament, an assertion that vitiates the meaning of the words.

As far as your last observation, have you considered the possibility for yourself? Many enemies started with the desire to seek out "pure doctrine" in an effort to distance themselves from Roman perversions. You are the one on very shakey grounds my friend and you don't even realize it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** June 08, 2010, 05:43:46 AM »

You'll notice also the conspicuous absence of the word votum which the Council of Trent had JUST used to (allegedly) dogmatically define "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined BoD using votum and the Catechism were here teaching BoD, the Catechism would certainly have used the term votum rather than propositum--which Trent lists as one of the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification.

Caminus · « **Reply #43 on:** June 08, 2010, 01:57:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You'll notice also the conspicuous absence of the word votum which the Council of Trent had JUST used to (allegedly) dogmatically define "Baptism of Desire". If Trent had defined BoD using votum and the Catechism were here teaching BoD, the Catechism would certainly have used the term votum rather than propositum--which Trent lists as one of the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification.

And? You seem to think, among your many other fallacies, that different words describing the same reality amounts to a change in doctrine.

Are you going to oblige my requests or will I be forced to consider you a coward full of vain sophistries?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 08, 2010, 08:37:39 PM »

Not worth my time, Caminus. I'd much rather spend the time praying for some poor lost soul to find the Catholic Church.

I only post for the sake of those who might be sincerely looking for the truth on this matter--not for you.