Author Topic: Cantate Domino (Read 5049 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2014, 11:39:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth

You've got Wathan, the Dimonds and Feeney, I got Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. I'm feeling pretty good right now. With all due respect to Father Wathan.

Yes, Cantarella, those 6-7 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD don't exist. They are just figments of your imagination.

I've pointed this out before, that the BoDers, due to their bad will, live in a state of cognitive dissonance, so that any evidence against their position doesn't exist in their minds.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2014, 06:04:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth

You've got Wathan, the Dimonds and Feeney, I got Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. I'm feeling pretty good right now. With all due respect to Father Wathan.

Yes, Cantarella, those 6-7 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD don't exist. They are just figments of your imagination.

I've pointed this out before, that the BoDers, due to their bad will, live in a state of cognitive dissonance, so that any evidence against their position doesn't exist in their minds.

"So that any evidence against their position doesn't exist in their minds." I finally realize where the saying "the pot calling the kettle black" came from. But in your case it is the pot calling the white snow black.

Carry on.

:cheers:

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2014, 07:10:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth

You've got Wathan, the Dimonds and Feeney, I got Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. I'm feeling pretty good right now. With all due respect to Father Wathan.

Yes, Cantarella, those 6-7 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD don't exist. They are just figments of your imagination.

I've pointed this out before, that the BoDers, due to their bad will, live in a state of cognitive dissonance, so that any evidence against their position doesn't exist in their minds.

Not only does not exist, but when confronted head on with the unavoidable collision with the truth, they get run over by it then say there was no collision.

JPaul · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2014, 07:16:08 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: J.Paul
Actually, some of us are saying that we trust not in ourselves, but, in the Divine law of the Church which is the direct expression of Christ's will, and we do not err, in placing that above the opinions of men, even those who have been declared Saints.

Neither do the Doctors and Saints who give us the true teaching. It is not like they are unaware of the Divine law they knew better than you or I, and understand what the Church taught in her own language better than you or I and could make the proper distinctions better than you or I. So there's that.

According to your position, these Doctors and Saints have never been known to err, or to be wrong, it is not possible for you. They are as infallible as Christ Himself.

Can you show me where I made such a statement? I'd be most interested in seeing it.

Perhaps that would be every time that you folks hammer others with the "infallible doctrines" which you base largely upon the utterances of said Doctors, Saints, and theologians.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2014, 08:29:19 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: J.Paul
Actually, some of us are saying that we trust not in ourselves, but, in the Divine law of the Church which is the direct expression of Christ's will, and we do not err, in placing that above the opinions of men, even those who have been declared Saints.

Neither do the Doctors and Saints who give us the true teaching. It is not like they are unaware of the Divine law they knew better than you or I, and understand what the Church taught in her own language better than you or I and could make the proper distinctions better than you or I. So there's that.

According to your position, these Doctors and Saints have never been known to err, or to be wrong, it is not possible for you. They are as infallible as Christ Himself.

Can you show me where I made such a statement? I'd be most interested in seeing it.

Perhaps that would be every time that you folks hammer others with the "infallible doctrines" which you base largely upon the utterances of said Doctors, Saints, and theologians.

No "perhaps" about it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2014, 09:19:26 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Truth

You've got Wathan, the Dimonds and Feeney, I got Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. I'm feeling pretty good right now. With all due respect to Father Wathan.

Yes, Cantarella, those 6-7 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD don't exist. They are just figments of your imagination.

I've pointed this out before, that the BoDers, due to their bad will, live in a state of cognitive dissonance, so that any evidence against their position doesn't exist in their minds.

Not only does not exist, but when confronted head on with the unavoidable collision with the truth, they get run over by it then say there was no collision.

Again the pot calling the white snow black.

Carry on.

:cheers:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2014, 11:50:51 AM »

OK, BoDers, if you truly admit the existence of the evidence contrary to BoD, what do you say of the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire?

Were they wrong?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2014, 12:17:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

OK, BoDers, if you truly admit the existence of the evidence contrary to BoD, what do you say of the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire?

Were they wrong?

Provide your sources and the quotes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2014, 01:31:29 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
OK, BoDers, if you truly admit the existence of the evidence contrary to BoD, what do you say of the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire?

Were they wrong?

Provide your sources and the quotes.

They've been provided myriad times. You just won't acknowledge their existence. I'll find them when I have the time to do so, since you dishonestly pretend that you don't know the ones in question.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2014, 02:06:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
OK, BoDers, if you truly admit the existence of the evidence contrary to BoD, what do you say of the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire?

Were they wrong?

Provide your sources and the quotes.

They've been provided myriad times. You just won't acknowledge their existence. I'll find them when I have the time to do so, since you dishonestly pretend that you don't know the ones in question.

You are fully unaware of my "dishonesty". You can tell how intellectual a forum is when people constantly have to resort to personal attacks to make their points.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2014, 02:13:43 PM »

Additionally it is most curious how a Doctor of the Church can call De Fide no less that which is in fact "erroneous" according to our esteemed Feeneyites.

That is not just a small error but an "out of your mind" "how can you be a Doctor of the Church?" error if the Feeneyites are correct.

DE FIDE!?!

That poor Alphonsus must have REALLY lost his mind. I don't see how the Feeneyites bear with us.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2014, 02:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Additionally it is most curious how a Doctor of the Church can call De Fide no less that which is in fact "erroneous" according to our esteemed Feeneyites.

That is not just a small error but an "out of your mind" "how can you be a Doctor of the Church?" error if the Feeneyites are correct.

DE FIDE!?!

That poor Alphonsus must have REALLY lost his mind. I don't see how the Feeneyites bear with us.

You really need to calm down and stop hyperventilating. It is not the least bit uncommon for theologians to disagree on the theological note of a certain proposition.

We saw that with the discussion around the infallibility of canonizations, with some holding it to be de fide, others proxima fidei, others theologically certain, and some even denying the proposition altogether.

St. Alphonsus was wrong. He is NOT INFALLIBLE.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2014, 02:25:52 PM »

You will absolutely and desperately cling with white knuckles against having to admit that any Church Doctor could have been wrong about anything.

Why?

Because once you admit that you have to admit that they theoretically could have been wrong about BoD.

And without your elevation of these Doctors to infallible status, you've got absolutely NOTHING to stand on.

Why? Because you have not ever made a single THEOLOGICAL argument in support of BoD. In fact, no one has. Without your reliance upon the authority of these Doctors, you've got absolutely nothing.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #43 on:** June 20, 2014, 02:40:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You will absolutely and desperately cling with white knuckles against having to admit that any Church Doctor could have been wrong about anything.

Why?

Because once you admit that you have to admit that they theoretically could have been wrong about BoD.

And without your elevation of these Doctors to infallible status, you've got absolutely NOTHING to stand on.

Why? Because you have not ever made a single THEOLOGICAL argument in support of BoD. In fact, no one has. Without your reliance upon the authority of these Doctors, you've got absolutely nothing.

Alphosus was a heretic if he taught de fide that which is the opposite of a dogma of the Church. But the Feeneyites say.

I'm waiting for your sources and quotes. Poor Alphonsus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 20, 2014, 03:31:26 PM »

Quote from: St. Gregory nαzιanz

Still other are not able to receive [Baptism], perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it... If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without the act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it.

Was St. Gregory nαzιanz wrong, LoT?