Author Topic: Original Sin (Read 11951 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #150 on:** July 03, 2013, 08:32:06 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Napoli
I learned early on not to argue too much with SJB. He's merciless.

Yes, when the spreading of error is at stake. But that's true mercy, not the human respect you seem to favor.

Btw, you seem to have little problem with Isaac calling me a liar. Why do think that is?

SJB, it is a sad fact that you are more concerned with "winning the argument" than you are with accepting the truth.

SJB · « **Reply #151 on:** July 03, 2013, 08:43:35 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Napoli
I learned early on not to argue too much with SJB. He's merciless.

Yes, when the spreading of error is at stake. But that's true mercy, not the human respect you seem to favor.

Btw, you seem to have little problem with Isaac calling me a liar. Why do think that is?

SJB, it is a sad fact that you are more concerned with "winning the argument" than you are with accepting the truth.

No, the "sad fact" is that you have only provided yourself as a source for your "understanding" of the issue. You dismiss or ignore all authorities.

Stubborn · « **Reply #152 on:** July 03, 2013, 09:29:14 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Napoli
I learned early on not to argue too much with SJB. He's merciless.

Yes, when the spreading of error is at stake. But that's true mercy, not the human respect you seem to favor.

Btw, you seem to have little problem with Isaac calling me a liar. Why do think that is?

SJB, it is a sad fact that you are more concerned with "winning the argument" than you are with accepting the truth.

No, the "sad fact" is that you have only provided yourself as a source for your "understanding" of the issue. You dismiss or ignore all authorities.

See here is the crazy thing.

I provided texts from the catechism which is supposed to educate and help you to understand the teaching. But you reject what it is literally teaching because you prefer to reward salvation to those outside the Church. As such, you create exceptions and add provisos which change the teachings into something you approve of. . . . . all the while insisting you are doing no such thing.

It is really that simple.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #153 on:** July 03, 2013, 11:02:56 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Napoli
I learned early on not to argue too much with SJB. He's merciless.

Yes, when the spreading of error is at stake. But that's true mercy, not the human respect you seem to favor.

Btw, you seem to have little problem with Isaac calling me a liar. Why do think that is?

SJB, it is a sad fact that you are more concerned with "winning the argument" than you are with accepting the truth.

No, the "sad fact" is that you have only provided yourself as a source for your "understanding" of the issue. You dismiss or ignore all authorities.

Let's examine this statement:
-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.”

The understanding of the Dogma has to always be understood how it was declared. Well who declared it? The Popes and the Councils (Holy Mother Church). Not the catechisms, the doctors or theologians, not Fenton, not Lefebvre, not anyone else who shares his theological opinion in the public forum. Only those who defined the Dogma, which IS the only infallible explanation of Revelation.
When the Council says "as it is written", it would be to recede from the meaning to add "at least in desire". It would be specious or deceptive to add something like this. It is an error for those who think this dogma needs to be explained further because they think there is a deeper understanding of the Dogma, i.e. that all the effects of Baptism can be had, not as it is written, but merely through a desire for the sacrament. FALSE!

This is why when it comes to Dogma, Catholics can rest assured that they are receiving the faith from the Dogmatic Definitions. That is how we measure everything. We can learn from Catechisms and Theologians just fine, but when they say something that we are not sure of, we consult the Dogma. This is because it is the original and final rule of faith for which we measure all else.
It seems odd that you do not want consult the infallible teachings of the church and would rather consult fallible men.

One must be one of the faithful to be saved. No one outside the Church will be saved.

-Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

I'm sure we all know the difference between the Faithful and Catechumens. Catechumens are not saved because they are not part of the faithful.
How do we become part of the Faithful?

-Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

A person is not within the Church, nor a member, nor one of the Faithful, without first receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

-Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “... the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”

Please give up your error and believe the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. It is plain language and easy to understand and will never lead you astray. Please Convert from your errors.

SJB · « **Reply #154 on:** July 03, 2013, 11:41:02 AM »

You have only provided yourself as a source for your "understanding" of the issue. You dismiss or ignore all authorities.

SJB · « **Reply #155 on:** July 03, 2013, 11:53:21 AM »

Provide an authority who EXPLAINS Trent the way you do. You have either ignored this or pretended quoting Trent supports your view.

Stubborn · « **Reply #156 on:** July 03, 2013, 12:00:01 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Provide an authority who EXPLAINS Trent the way you do. You have either ignored this or pretended quoting Trent supports your view.

"...As it is written..."

Try hard as you can to always remember those words the next time you try to explain the necessity of the sacrament away.

Nishant · « **Reply #157 on:** July 04, 2013, 02:25:17 AM »

Ok, now where were we? You admitted, Isaac, that the res sacramenti of penance can be had in voto. Then you denied the same applies to baptism. Very well.

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

The Council states that both the sacrament of Penance AND Baptism are necessary, but for Penance it adds the exception whereas for Baptism it DOES NOT. Your point is easily refuted.

Well, firstly, it shows that you are mistaken in your understanding, when it is said that the sacrament of penance or baptism is necessary, what is meant in both cases is that it is the sacramental effect is necessary, without which one cannot be justified and saved. Thus your own quote, with different emphases, is against you,

-Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

Secondly, as already mentioned, Trent uses the same word and principle of desire for both the sacraments of penance and baptism. As the Holy Office Letter most correctly points out,

Quote

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

Quote

It is not the same thing with Catechumens because they are not in the Church yet. If someone receives the sacrament of penance through perfect contrition without the actual sacrament, they are already in the Church.

Such an objection, which is a non sequitur, is incapable of being sustained for many reasons. For one thing, in certain cases (say a heretic repenting of his sins and heresies after being duly instructed in the faith, or a former Catholic lapsed into schism or apostasy returning contrite to unity and faith) the penitent himself is formerly outside the Church and after the reception of the sacramental effect in voto is translated to being inside the Church.

Quote

We know that the only entrance into the Church is though Baptism and outside the Church there is no remission of sins.

Yes, but in at least some cases as mentioned above penance itself effects the transition from being outside the Church to inside, therefore this point is moot.

We will come to the point about authoritative and binding Magisterial teaching as expressed in Encyclical letters, of Pope Innocent II and III, later.

For now, I want to make the positive case against your assertion from two sources, Holy Writ, and Papal condemnations. Now, Pope St. Pius V manifestly taught that charity in penitents and catechumens alike secured the remission of sins and condemned the contrary proposition, "Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins" (Denz. 1031)

Moreover, it is plainly taught in Holy Writ in numerous places that charity secures the remission of sins. With full justice therefore does the Baltimore Catechism say,

Quote

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

Many of these texts, especially some from Our Lord, can refer to both baptism and penance but it is plain that some in particular could be possibly understood only of the sacramental effect of baptism.

For example, in 1 Jn 4:7, the Apostle says, "Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God."

Now by speaking of "born of God" such a text is clearly speaking of the spiritual regeneration that is the proper effect of baptism, which shows that the effect of baptism no less than penance can be received no less by catechumens than by penitents when desire is perfected by charity. Thus, your position is mistaken.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #158 on:** July 04, 2013, 11:14:05 AM »

Quote

Ok, now where were we? You admitted, Isaac, that the res sacramenti of penance can be had in voto. Then you denied the same applies to baptism. Very well.

Quote
Isaac Jogues said:
The Council states that both the sacrament of Penance AND Baptism are necessary, but for Penance it adds the exception whereas for Baptism it DOES NOT. Your point is easily refuted.

Well, firstly, it shows that you are mistaken in your understanding, when it is said that the sacrament of penance or baptism is necessary, what is meant in both cases is that it is the sacramental effect is necessary, without which one cannot be justified and saved. Thus your own quote, with different emphases, is against you,

-Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

Nishant,
I understand fully that it is the sacramental effect. The point is that in penance, the sacramental effect can be had in desire through perfect contrition. This exception to the necessity of the sacrament is explained three times by the council, like I stated before. In baptism, there is no exception to the sacrament made by the council. The effect of the sacrament of Baptism can only be received by actual water Baptism, "as it is written".

Quote

Secondly, as already mentioned, Trent uses the same word and principle of desire for both the sacraments of penance and baptism. As the Holy Office Letter most correctly points out,

Quote
Quote:
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The council does not speak of the sacrament of regeneration in regards to "only in desire and longing". This would not be
'as it is written' Whoever wrote this too, is in error.

Quote

Quote
Quote:
It is not the same thing with Catechumens because they are not in the Church yet. If someone receives the sacrament of penance through perfect contrition without the actual sacrament, they are already in the Church.

Such an objection, which is a non sequitur, is incapable of being sustained for many reasons. For one thing, in certain cases (say a heretic repenting of his sins and heresies after being duly instructed in the faith, or a former Catholic lapsed into schism or apostasy returning contrite to unity and faith) the penitent himself is formerly outside the Church and after the reception of the sacramental effect in voto is translated to being inside the Church.

Quote
Quote:
We know that the only entrance into the Church is though Baptism and outside the Church there is no remission of sins.

Yes, but in at least some cases as mentioned above penance itself effects the transition from being outside the Church to inside, therefore this point is moot.

While penance can be a way into the Church for a lapsed Catholic, the point was that for a catechumen, the only way in is through Baptism.

Quote

For now, I want to make the positive case against your assertion from two sources, Holy Writ, and Papal condemnations. Now, Pope St. Pius V manifestly taught that charity in penitents and catechumens alike secured the remission of sins and condemned the contrary proposition, "Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins" (Denz. 1031)

The source you quote (St. Pius V) from Denzinger is condemning the idea that perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of sins. Are you trying to be dishonest or do you not know that the passage is condemning this idea. You just quoted it as if perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of sins. HMMM....

Quote

Moreover, it is plainly taught in Holy Writ in numerous places that charity secures the remission of sins. With full justice therefore does the Baltimore Catechism say,

Quote:
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

As for the Baltimore Catechism, the Church never taught that the effects of Baptism can be had through a desire for it or martyrdom. This Q&A also teaches that God can possibly command an impossibility.
Also, I don't know if you misspoke, but this catechism teaches that perfect contrition, not perfect charity, secures the remission of sins. Perfect contrition will not suffice for Baptism and it's effects, and one cannot receive perfect charity without the remission of sins.

SJB · « **Reply #159 on:** July 04, 2013, 03:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Provide an authority who EXPLAINS Trent the way you do. You have either ignored this or pretended quoting Trent supports your view.

"...As it is written..."

Try hard as you can to always remember those words the next time you try to explain the necessity of the sacrament away.

"As it is written" is the introduction to the proof offered and it by no means is the only interpretation of a scriptural passage. The fact is that you have a lonely opinion and can provide no Catholic sources that EXPLAIN things the way you see it.

Alcuin · « **Reply #160 on:** July 04, 2013, 10:39:22 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Provide an authority who EXPLAINS Trent the way you do. You have either ignored this or pretended quoting Trent supports your view.

"...As it is written..."

Try hard as you can to always remember those words the next time you try to explain the necessity of the sacrament away.

"As it is written" is the introduction to the proof offered and it by no means is the only interpretation of a scriptural passage. The fact is that you have a lonely opinion and can provide no Catholic sources that EXPLAIN things the way you see it.

Can you provide a Catholic source that EXPLAINS the way you see Vatican II?

SJB · « **Reply #161 on:** July 05, 2013, 06:39:47 AM »

Quote

The point is that in penance, the sacramental effect can be had in desire through perfect contrition.

Why? Haven't you consistently argued that God can provide anything? If He desires a sacramental confession, a priest could and would certainly be made available?

The fact is that God works through natural means most of the time. A miracle is what suspends the natural laws and we know miracles are not commonplace. Grace is of course a miracle, yet not a suspension of the natural laws.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #162 on:** July 05, 2013, 10:18:01 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
The point is that in penance, the sacramental effect can be had in desire through perfect contrition.

Why? Haven't you consistently argued that God can provide anything? If He desires a sacramental confession, a priest could and would certainly be made available?

The fact is that God works through natural means most of the time. A miracle is what suspends the natural laws and we know miracles are not commonplace. Grace is of course a miracle, yet not a suspension of the natural laws.

First, are you admitting you believe that God cannot provide anything?

Secondly, He has given man an alternate method for Sacramental Confession, i.e. in desire. He has not offered one for Baptism. We know this from what He has revealed through His Magisterium.

If a man is truly perfectly contrite then that would be all he needs for the remission of sins. Who says that God would not keep a man alive long enough for sacramental confession if the man was not perfectly contrite.

Miracles don't always have to be these spectacular happenings (in appearance) like the sun moving around in the sky, or the Eucharist turning to flesh etc... It can be as simple as keeping the elect alive just long enough to fulfill His commands.

Nishant · « **Reply #163 on:** July 05, 2013, 02:31:11 PM »

Ok, that's better. Some of your statements are imprecise though, and not how the Saints and Doctors express it.

For example, when you say, that perfect contrition is an "exception" to the necessity of the sacrament, the principle you concede is correct, but the way you express it is not exact. The correct way to say it is that the res sacramenti or sacramental effect is always necessary in re aut in voto in fact or in desire.

But in any case, you didn't seem to appreciate the force of the argument against your position from that canon. As we both grant, the effect of the sacrament of penance is necessary in fact or in desire. But Trent says that penance is necessary for salvation just as baptism itself is necessary for salvation! Therefore, baptism also must be necessary in fact or in desire.

This is indeed that understanding that the Church has always taught and always held as St. Thomas bears witness, "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire"

You are wrong about John 3:5, as a matter of fact, "As it is written" is the usual way of referring to any Scriptural passage, Trent's interpretation only tells us that the Savior's words in that passage must be understood of baptism in fact or in desire, but since you won't agree, I'm not basing my argument on that.

Since you mention the Baltimore Catechism teaching falsehood, tell me do you reject the authority of the Roman Catechism as well, or do you believe you can interpret it favorably to your own position? Because that Catechism also describes a situation that makes it impossible for adults to receive the baptism of water.

Some closing points. If you read that portion carefully, you will see my statement was no misrepresentation, I said, "Pope St. Pius V manifestly taught that charity in penitents and catechumens alike secured the remission of sins and condemned the contrary proposition ... " before quoting Denz 1031.

That this is the correct understanding is also shown by Denz 1032 and 1033 as well as is also evidently known from the general character of the teaching of Michael Baius, who was condemned. He denied charity or love of God was always linked to and obtained the remission of sins, whether in catechumens or in penitents.

Contrition of heart is sometimes used somewhat synonymously with perfect charity since it describes a concomitant effect inseparable from it, for instance, St. Alphonsus gives this definition as de fide, ""baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water"

Finally, do you accept what Pope Pius XII says in Humani Generis of binding ordinary Magisterial teachings from the Pope? I'd be surprised if you do, but if so, we will come back to Popes Innocent II and III, as well as the question you asked on circuмcision, from Scripture and the Fathers as well.

SJB · « **Reply #164 on:** July 05, 2013, 04:11:34 PM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Quote from: SJB
Quote
The point is that in penance, the sacramental effect can be had in desire through perfect contrition.

Why? Haven't you consistently argued that God can provide anything? If He desires a sacramental confession, a priest could and would certainly be made available?

The fact is that God works through natural means most of the time. A miracle is what suspends the natural laws and we know miracles are not commonplace. Grace is of course a miracle, yet not a suspension of the natural laws.

First, are you admitting you believe that God cannot provide anything?

Secondly, He has given man an alternate method for Sacramental Confession, i.e. in desire. He has not offered one for Baptism. We know this from what He has revealed through His Magisterium.

If a man is truly perfectly contrite then that would be all he needs for the remission of sins. Who says that God would not keep a man alive long enough for sacramental confession if the man was not perfectly contrite.

Miracles don't always have to be these spectacular happenings (in appearance) like the sun moving around in the sky, or the Eucharist turning to flesh etc... It can be as simple as keeping the elect alive just long enough to fulfill His commands.

You haven't addressed anything I've said. Here it is again:

The fact is that God works through natural means most of the time. A miracle is what suspends the natural laws and we know miracles are not commonplace. Grace is of course a miracle, yet not a suspension of the natural laws.