Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 9493 times)

bowler · « **Reply #120 on:** April 12, 2014, 09:59:54 PM »

Carry on Ladi and Nishant. I'll go back to just reading what you two are writing on this thread and stay out.

Ambrose · « **Reply #121 on:** April 12, 2014, 10:45:55 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.

The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.

You know this is not true. Anyone who pays attention to this forum knows that the reason people have a problem with SJB is because in many of his posts he insults people and calls them names, most frequently "idiot."

The reason that they do not like SJB is because he posts approved sources that stand against them. He posts constantly from approved texts, they then proceed to ignore them, and pretend they are theologians who know better.

Then, they post all of their theological musings, and SJB calls them out on it, and they get annoyed that he asks for sources.

These people are playing a dangerous game by playing theologian. The Church forbids such activities for a reason, but they don't seem to care. In the absence of authority, anarchy soon rules.

Ambrose · « **Reply #122 on:** April 12, 2014, 10:50:06 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Ambrose and SJB the kings of smokescreen. Add up everything they've said on this thread, it's all smokescreen. NOTHING said nothing contributed! All smokescreen. If everyone would put you on hide in this thread, they would miss NOTHING!

This was the best thread on BOD on CI ever, till you two showed up with your empty remarks.

From the man who advocates drunkenness, I take it as a complement.

SJB · « **Reply #123 on:** April 13, 2014, 09:37:15 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
And then the idiot bowler quotes his own post to prove once again he is lost in the forest.

Hey BoZo the Frustrated, what exactly are you defending now? When was the last time you laughed at anything? Loosen up, go get drunk or something. You are a perpetual pest. Break away from being a poster boy for constipation. Get a life!

What does "laughing at anything" have to do with this discussion? The above post speaks volumes about who you are and more importantly, what you are not; a serious person.

SJB · « **Reply #124 on:** April 13, 2014, 09:50:15 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.

The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.

You know this is not true. Anyone who pays attention to this forum knows that the reason people have a problem with SJB is because in many of his posts he insults people and calls them names, most frequently "idiot."

Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said? All of this talk is just a diversion from the fact that your leader, Ladi, has no source for what he posts here. For a man who claims superior education, then says he has no library of sources (many are free books on-line, btw), he seems a bit of a fraud. He boasts that he can read Latin and Hebrew, but can't find a Catholic source for his musings here???

This is precisely why Matthew should ban members from posting their own "theological" ideas. Provide a source or be quiet. The arguments should be from approved sources. This is something Ladi can't tolerate, because HE HAS NO SOURCES.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #125 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:37:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

If you have a quote that understands this passage differently than how it actually reads, then YOU produce it. I'm simply looking at the passage at face value and reading it word for word. You are obviously not competent to engage in any theological discussion whatsoever. Instead you just bark in on every page with some insult or demand for proof. Again, if you want to interpret this passage away to mean something OTHER than it actually says, then the burden of proof is on you. If I were to cite the dogmatic pronouncement of Pius IX that Our Lady was conceived without original sin, you would demand that I prove that this passage didn't mean that Our Lady was conceived WITH original sin.

Matto · « **Reply #126 on:** April 14, 2014, 02:42:39 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said?

I think we should treat each other with respect, not insults. Of course you were reminded several times that Christ said calling you fellow man a "fool" was a damnable sin. But of course it is no sin for you because you know better than Christ.

SJB · « **Reply #127 on:** April 14, 2014, 04:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: SJB

Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said?

I think we should treat each other with respect, not insults. Of course you were reminded several times that Christ said calling you fellow man a "fool" was a damnable sin. But of course it is no sin for you because you know better than Christ.

No, I just truly believe the reproach is necessary given the gravity of the offense, and as such, isn't sinful at all.

bowler · « **Reply #128 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:44:46 AM »

False BODers like SJB just can't believe that anyone "good" can be lost. They may say that to be saved one must at a minimum explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, however, they will defend it seems to the death, the opposite teaching too:

From the thread "St. Thomas on Implicit faith:

Quote from: Bowler

You and Nishant just believe what you want to believe. Like I keep telling you & Nishant, you are denying the clearest dogma on EENS from The Council of Florence, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the dogmatic decree of Vatican I, to name a few, and you can quote no Father, Doctor or Saint or council that teaches what you and Nishant are defending here :

Quote from: Bowler
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. They "say" they believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

That's what that False BODer teaching is in the raw, unmasked and naked, that is what they are teaching, a contradiction:

DOGMA -Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,
Quote
Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Athanasian Creed

[
Quote
b]1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [/b]

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Quote
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Dogma Vatican I:
Quote
"The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation".

bowler · « **Reply #129 on:** April 15, 2014, 01:03:21 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
Very good, Nishant. ... You seem here to accept the need for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the mysteries of the Incarnation for salvation. To me that's a major step ... in the right direction.

I've said this many times, yet one must admit the opposing view is not condemned. You say it is condemned, but that is on your own authority, which isn't any kind of authority at all.

This is ALL that SJB is saying, and yet Vatican II precisely teaches the "opposing view", and SJB rejects Vatican II, and all the modern theologians that teach the same.

He condemns Vatican II for teaching proposition two which he will not condemn, and he condemns all the "idiots", as he says he righteously calls them, because they believe in John 3:15 and all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, as they are written.

SJB teaches and defends and will not condemn the contradictory belief that ALL false BODers defend. They "say" they believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

That's what that False BODer teaching is in the raw, unmasked and naked, that is what they are teaching, a contradiction.

SJB and all false BODers like him are mentally handicapped, they are progressivist and modernists on this subject. They teach/defend/do not condemn a direct contradiction.

SJB · « **Reply #130 on:** April 15, 2014, 11:11:55 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Very good, Nishant. ... You seem here to accept the need for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the mysteries of the Incarnation for salvation. To me that's a major step ... in the right direction.

I've said this many times, yet one must admit the opposing view is not condemned. You say it is condemned, but that is on your own authority, which isn't any kind of authority at all.

This is ALL that SJB is saying, and yet Vatican II precisely teaches the "opposing view", and SJB rejects Vatican II, and all the modern theologians that teach the same.

No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #131 on:** April 15, 2014, 11:17:43 AM »

Quote from: SJB

No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.

SJB · « **Reply #132 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:28:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.

Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.

bowler · « **Reply #133 on:** April 15, 2014, 01:16:43 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.

Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.

That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.

SJB · « **Reply #134 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:11:57 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.

Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.

That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.

Catholics are not taught by reading Council docuмents. There are living breathing teachers instructing them (or failing to instruct them.)