Author Topic: Original Sin (Read 11952 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** June 19, 2013, 08:29:34 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn

What *would* it take to convince you? - if nothing else, please answer this one question.

There is no contradiction. It's only in your mind and that is proven because NOBODY has ever noticed what you claim you see so clearly.

Obviously SOMEBODY noticed else the popes would have had no need to define the dogma.

The entire question is over the dogma. You can't refer to the dogma to refute the fact that NOBODY has ever held your view!

You keep making that erroneous statement.

Our Lord himself, the very popes who declared the dogma, the Council of Trent, Trent's catechism, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas and umpteen other saints, all held "my view".

Are you not reading what has been posted or do you simply not believe what has been posted?

Show us an authority who EXPLAINS it the way you understand it.

The catechism from Trent is not an authority for you any longer?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not support your view. If this is such an error, somebody must address it. The fact is they haven't and that's because it's not an error, it's the teaching of the Church.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #46 on:** June 19, 2013, 09:09:30 AM »

Quote

Show us an authority who EXPLAINS it the way you understand it.

When you say this SJB, you are fooling nobody but yourself. All we hear when you say this is "I know that the Popes have infallibly taught that a person needs water Baptism for physical membership in the Church and that nobody is saved without this physical membership in the Church, but I don't want to believe it. I will keep saying 'show an authority who explains it that way' because I have nothing else to say. I know that when I say that, the others respond with all the infallible explanations of Divine Revelation from the Popes and that's all a real Catholic needs, but I don't want to be wrong. So maybe if I keep saying that catch phrase, these people will start to think, 'maybe I am wrong and you don't need baptism or the Church, (which is essentially what SJB is saying) and I should follow SJB'".

You unfortunately are blinded by your bad will. The dogmas are the official explanation of Revealed Truth from God. It seems that you don't realize that a dogmatic definition is an explanation of what the Church believes as revealed in Scripture and Tradition. This is how the Church explains it and you don't seem to get that. You keep asking us to provide someone who explains it this way but we have and it's the Church's Magisterium. If these were not enough then there would be endless interpretation of different issues from Scripture and Tradition. The Dogmas settle these issues and the understanding must always be retained and never receded from.

Quote

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from
that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

even due to a more supposed advancement of knowledge of the subject

Quote

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of
knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema."

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** June 19, 2013, 09:36:19 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

The catechism from Trent is not an authority for you any longer?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not support your view. If this is such an error, somebody must address it. The fact is they haven't and that's because it's not an error, it's the teaching of the Church.

Let's be honest here SJB.
You think that because the catechism does not condemn BOD explicitly, on that account it does not support "my view", but the reality is that because the catechism states *all* must be baptized - thereby contradicting BOD - you disagree with the catechism. Instead of saying you disagree with the catechism, you keep making the erroneous statement that the necessity for all to be baptized is "my view".

Since you disagree with the catechism, you disagree with the de fide canons from whence the catechism gets it teachings. Please note below some of those who claim to follow "my view" - btw, if you ever figure out that it is I who follow their view, you will have made progress.

As stated in the catechism itself:

...it was issued by the express command of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all, that by it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can be compared with it. . . . . . and it continues on with many others who follow "my view".

Again, the dogma says what it says, Trent's catechism explains the meaning wonderfully, there is no hidden meaning implicit in the defined dogma. Trent's catechism explains what "or the desire thereof" means but because you disagree with Trent's explanation, you claim Trent's catechism is no authority and that the catechism (of all things) does not explain it according to "my view".

As I said, you dig your own hole deeper all the time.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** June 19, 2013, 10:59:47 AM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Quote
Show us an authority who EXPLAINS it the way you understand it.

When you say this SJB, you are fooling nobody but yourself. All we hear when you say this is "I know that the Popes have infallibly taught that a person needs water Baptism for physical membership in the Church and that nobody is saved without this physical membership in the Church, but I don't want to believe it. I will keep saying 'show an authority who explains it that way' because I have nothing else to say. I know that when I say that, the others respond with all the infallible explanations of Divine Revelation from the Popes and that's all a real Catholic needs, but I don't want to be wrong. So maybe if I keep saying that catch phrase, these people will start to think, 'maybe I am wrong and you don't need baptism or the Church, (which is essentially what SJB is saying) and I should follow SJB'".

You unfortunately are blinded by your bad will. The dogmas are the official explanation of Revealed Truth from God. It seems that you don't realize that a dogmatic definition is an explanation of what the Church believes as revealed in Scripture and Tradition. This is how the Church explains it and you don't seem to get that. You keep asking us to provide someone who explains it this way but we have and it's the Church's Magisterium. If these were not enough then there would be endless interpretation of different issues from Scripture and Tradition. The Dogmas settle these issues and the understanding must always be retained and never receded from.

Quote
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from
that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

even due to a more supposed advancement of knowledge of the subject

Quote
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of
knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema."

You have no source for this interpretation. It's yours alone and it contradicts all authorities who explain it in theological works and catechisms.

SJB · « **Reply #49 on:** June 19, 2013, 11:07:55 AM »

Quote

I know that the Popes have infallibly taught that a person needs water Baptism for physical membership in the Church and that nobody is saved without this physical membership in the Church ...

This is your mischaracterization and it contradicts Catholic Doctrine.

SJB · « **Reply #50 on:** June 19, 2013, 11:17:02 AM »

Quote

So maybe if I keep saying that catch phrase, these people will start to think, 'maybe I am wrong and you don't need baptism or the Church, (which is essentially what SJB is saying) and I should follow SJB'".

This is a perfect example of your ability to misrepresent something so it is the opposite of reality. I have said the opposite of what you just wrote.

Stubborn · « **Reply #51 on:** June 19, 2013, 11:50:19 AM »

Quote from: SJB

You have no source for this interpretation. It's yours alone and it contradicts all authorities who explain it in theological works and catechisms.

What?

Pope Pius IX is not a source now?

Let's see........ the words of Our Lord, the defined dogma, the catechism, the popes, the theologians, saints, fathers and doctors etc. all need to be interpreted - but, playing your game - who will interpret the interpretation?

We can interpret BOD to mean *all* are saved without the sacrament - same as you have interpreted the necessity of the sacrament for *all* to mean for none - but rather than make exceptions to your "dogma of BOD", we recognize it for the contradiction to the dogma that it is.

Why don't you recognize the dogma for what it says - and believe it?

SJB · « **Reply #52 on:** June 19, 2013, 04:38:17 PM »

Quote

Let's see........ the words of Our Lord, the defined dogma, the catechism, the popes, the theologians, saints, fathers and doctors etc. all need to be interpreted - but, playing your game - who will interpret the interpretation?

This just proves you're not a serious person. I can quote scores of theologians who teach BOD just like St. Alphonsus teaches it. They are EXPLAINING the teaching of the Church on various points. They are EXPLAINING the doctrines of the Church. They are the experts.

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** June 19, 2013, 05:24:59 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Let's see........ the words of Our Lord, the defined dogma, the catechism, the popes, the theologians, saints, fathers and doctors etc. all need to be interpreted - but, playing your game - who will interpret the interpretation?

This just proves you're not a serious person. I can quote scores of theologians who teach BOD just like St. Alphonsus teaches it. They are EXPLAINING the teaching of the Church on various points. They are EXPLAINING the doctrines of the Church. They are the experts.

So what is it that makes you accept the teachings of St. Alphonsus who taught both, the necessity for *all* to receive the sacrament as well as a BOD of some sort - vs the words of Our Lord?

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

The catechism from Trent, as I already posted, explains what the Council meant when they said "or the desire thereof" - and it's explanation contained nothing whatsoever about a BOD - do you suppose they left that part out on purpose or was it a mistake, or perhaps just an oversight on their part?

What reason can you possibly give to explain why they left it out if such a thing as a BOD existed? That would be an inexcusable blunder on their part to do such a thing - if it existed - don't you agree?

Do you suppose the popes foresaw that theologians would happen along in a hundred years or so, so they figured "heck, we'll just leave it up to some future saints to tell "the rest of the story" - - or do you suppose the popes were incapable or too lazy to finish defining the dogma, so the Holy Ghost allowed them to leave the part about a BOD completely out?

SJB · « **Reply #54 on:** June 19, 2013, 08:07:16 PM »

Quote

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

Quote from: John Ch. 6

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It seems quite clear that Our Lord is saying the reception of the Eucharist in both forms is required by all for salvation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** June 20, 2013, 03:22:16 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

Quote from: John Ch. 6
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It seems quite clear that Our Lord is saying the reception of the Eucharist in both forms is required by all for salvation.

The Church has already taught us that we receive both, the Body *and* Blood when we receive The Body alone.

Same as the Church has taught that that the words of Our Lord are to be understood literally when it comes to the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism - this is why Trent said: "......or the desire thereof, as it is written: [john 3:5]...."

Alcuin · « **Reply #56 on:** June 20, 2013, 05:23:23 AM »

Please note that SJB believes that doctors and theologians are the proximate rule of faith and not the Magisterium.

SJB · « **Reply #57 on:** June 20, 2013, 05:58:34 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote
Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

Quote from: John Ch. 6
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It seems quite clear that Our Lord is saying the reception of the Eucharist in both forms is required by all for salvation.

The Church has already taught us that we receive both, the Body *and* Blood when we receive The Body alone.

Same as the Church has taught that that the words of Our Lord are to be understood literally when it comes to the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism - this is why Trent said: "......or the desire thereof, as it is written: [john 3:5]...."

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?

Also, you still have the problem that the reception of this Sacrament is not required in all cases, yet Our Lord "clearly says it is."

SJB · « **Reply #58 on:** June 20, 2013, 06:02:39 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Please note that SJB believes that doctors and theologians are the proximate rule of faith and not the Magisterium.

No, the preaching of the Church is the proximate rule of faith, not your interpretations of select doctrinal pronouncements.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** June 20, 2013, 06:59:40 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote
Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

Quote from: John Ch. 6
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It seems quite clear that Our Lord is saying the reception of the Eucharist in both forms is required by all for salvation.

The Church has already taught us that we receive both, the Body *and* Blood when we receive The Body alone.

Same as the Church has taught that that the words of Our Lord are to be understood literally when it comes to the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism - this is why Trent said: "......or the desire thereof, as it is written: [john 3:5]...."

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?

Also, you still have the problem that the reception of this Sacrament is not required in all cases, yet Our Lord "clearly says it is."

Did you read what I wrote? Go back and actually reply to what I wrote.

You reject the teachings of Holy Mother in regard to the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, so do not try to weasel out of admitting it by your puerile attempt at steering away from the subject with something completely unrelated.