Author Topic: The Roman Catechism (Read 20903 times)

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.