Author Topic: Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent  (Read 3176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7782
  • Reputation: +4568/-575
  • Gender: Female
Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2014, 10:46:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado

    Ironic, and pretty much double-standard, that you should all of a sudden say this just when Cantarella said the big crucial turning point was the 1949 letter. Just a few days ago you quote Fr. Fenton from a document where he was talking about that 1949 letter, and Fr. Fenton absolutely praised it up and down as a magisterial document.


    Even Fr. Fenton admits that Suprema Haec Sacra is not infallible:

    Quote

    Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra… is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not infallible, document.  That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”


    But he errs when he says that it is authoritative. This Letter is not even published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; but in The Pilot, the news of the Archdiocese of Boston.
     
    But of course, the liberal progressive media took no time in giving the impression to the world that the Catholic Church was no longer exclusive for human salvation. Here is the headline:

    Quote from: The Worcester Telegram

    VATICAN RULES AGAINST [FR. FEENEY] HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False






    Playing the "infallible/not infallible" game is not traditional. Catholics didn't do that in all of history. That is a heresy that shows you don't understand infallibility and the ordinary magisterium.

    That would be like a child picking up his papal approved catechism (as the Baltimore Catechism is) and asking whether each question was solemnly defined. For each "no" answer, he would say it's "not infallible" and doesn't have to believe it.

    Doing this is a sign someone is losing the faith, if he still has it.


    Please respond if everything in the following paragraph from the Catechism of Trent is correct.

    Is there an error here? Yes or no?

    Quote

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”


    Let's us know what you claim to be in error in the Roman Catechism.


    When is the soul united to the body, Nado?



    The Church has never taught that the soul is united to the body at conception. It's not even a religious tenet. It's one of nature, not divine revelation.


    So do you agree with the teaching here that the embryo is not a human being from the moment of conception? Is that correct?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
    « Reply #16 on: December 11, 2014, 12:04:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado

    Ironic, and pretty much double-standard, that you should all of a sudden say this just when Cantarella said the big crucial turning point was the 1949 letter. Just a few days ago you quote Fr. Fenton from a document where he was talking about that 1949 letter, and Fr. Fenton absolutely praised it up and down as a magisterial document.


    Even Fr. Fenton admits that Suprema Haec Sacra is not infallible:

    Quote

    Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra… is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not infallible, document.  That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”


    But he errs when he says that it is authoritative. This Letter is not even published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; but in The Pilot, the news of the Archdiocese of Boston.
     
    But of course, the liberal progressive media took no time in giving the impression to the world that the Catholic Church was no longer exclusive for human salvation. Here is the headline:

    Quote from: The Worcester Telegram

    VATICAN RULES AGAINST [FR. FEENEY] HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False






    Playing the "infallible/not infallible" game is not traditional. Catholics didn't do that in all of history. That is a heresy that shows you don't understand infallibility and the ordinary magisterium.

    That would be like a child picking up his papal approved catechism (as the Baltimore Catechism is) and asking whether each question was solemnly defined. For each "no" answer, he would say it's "not infallible" and doesn't have to believe it.

    Doing this is a sign someone is losing the faith, if he still has it.


    Please respond if everything in the following paragraph from the Catechism of Trent is correct.

    Is there an error here? Yes or no?

    Quote

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”


    Let's us know what you claim to be in error in the Roman Catechism.


    When is the soul united to the body, Nado?



    The Church has never taught that the soul is united to the body at conception. It's not even a religious tenet. It's one of nature, not divine revelation.


    So do you agree with the teaching here that the embryo is not a human being from the moment of conception? Is that correct?


    I have already made myself clear. Which sentence don't you understand. And what are you professing is the truth if you think you need to make some objection?


    That is quite surprising. Here we have a "Catholic" that denies the general consensus that the soul is united with the body at time of conception. This was already true back in 1907.

    Quote

    The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Soul” explains: “St. Thomas’s doctrine is … In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.”


    When does the souls unites with the body in Nado's world?

    The whole point is to illustrate that Catechisms are mere presentation of Catholic doctrine at the time but are not infallible. Long time ago, st. Thomas taught that the souls was united to the body after 40 days in men and 80 days in women. However that teaching is no longer believed in. In the Catechisms of Trent however, it seems there was still the general belief. Catechism narratives are not dogmatic and that is easy to prove.  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
    « Reply #17 on: December 11, 2014, 12:08:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unfortunately Nado is wrong in this one too. By Faith, we know that the human soul is created at conception. The fact that it is the substantial form of the body was defined as a dogma of faith by the Council of Vienne in 1311.

    Since the soul of man is rational, it was a theological conclusion, supported by the definition of Vienne, that the soul is therefore spiritual and thus requires a special creative act by God (in whose image and likeness we are made) to bring it into existence as the form of the body at conception.  Thee composite of body and soul make man, who is a rational animal, a complete substance with a rational nature. With the definition of the Immaculate Conception, it is now de fide as to the moment when the rational soul is created — at conception.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
    « Reply #18 on: December 11, 2014, 01:37:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Unfortunately Nado is wrong in this one too. By Faith, we know that the human soul is created at conception. The fact that it is the substantial form of the body was defined as a dogma of faith by the Council of Vienne in 1311.

    Since the soul of man is rational, it was a theological conclusion, supported by the definition of Vienne, that the soul is therefore spiritual and thus requires a special creative act by God (in whose image and likeness we are made) to bring it into existence as the form of the body at conception.  Thee composite of body and soul make man, who is a rational animal, a complete substance with a rational nature. With the definition of the Immaculate Conception, it is now de fide as to the moment when the rational soul is created — at conception.


    Wrong. The definition of the Immaculate Conception implied no such thing, otherwise the Catholic world would have mostly been believing against a divine dogma, and there was no such controversy at all.

    The Church teaches that original sin is generated through the material element. The Immaculate Conception means that did not happen. It has nothing to do with when the soul is united.

    Does you spiritual director really know what you are doing on the Internet spreading errors about the faith and the Church?


    When exactly does the soul unites with the body, Nado?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
    « Reply #19 on: December 11, 2014, 05:11:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Unfortunately Nado is wrong in this one too. By Faith, we know that the human soul is created at conception. The fact that it is the substantial form of the body was defined as a dogma of faith by the Council of Vienne in 1311.

    Since the soul of man is rational, it was a theological conclusion, supported by the definition of Vienne, that the soul is therefore spiritual and thus requires a special creative act by God (in whose image and likeness we are made) to bring it into existence as the form of the body at conception.  Thee composite of body and soul make man, who is a rational animal, a complete substance with a rational nature. With the definition of the Immaculate Conception, it is now de fide as to the moment when the rational soul is created — at conception.


    Wrong. The definition of the Immaculate Conception implied no such thing, otherwise the Catholic world would have mostly been believing against a divine dogma, and there was no such controversy at all.

    The Church teaches that original sin is generated through the material element. The Immaculate Conception means that did not happen. It has nothing to do with when the soul is united.

    Does you spiritual director really know what you are doing on the Internet spreading errors about the faith and the Church?


    When exactly does the soul unites with the body, Nado?


    That has only been surmised, and never established.


    Respond the question Nado. Do not be evasive.

    When exactly does the soul unites with the body?

    Quote

    when:
     adverb ˈhwen, ˈwen, (h)wən  

    : at what time

    : at, in, or during which

    : at or during which time




    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent
    « Reply #20 on: December 11, 2014, 06:47:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Nado
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Unfortunately Nado is wrong in this one too. By Faith, we know that the human soul is created at conception. The fact that it is the substantial form of the body was defined as a dogma of faith by the Council of Vienne in 1311.

    Since the soul of man is rational, it was a theological conclusion, supported by the definition of Vienne, that the soul is therefore spiritual and thus requires a special creative act by God (in whose image and likeness we are made) to bring it into existence as the form of the body at conception.  Thee composite of body and soul make man, who is a rational animal, a complete substance with a rational nature. With the definition of the Immaculate Conception, it is now de fide as to the moment when the rational soul is created — at conception.


    Wrong. The definition of the Immaculate Conception implied no such thing, otherwise the Catholic world would have mostly been believing against a divine dogma, and there was no such controversy at all.

    The Church teaches that original sin is generated through the material element. The Immaculate Conception means that did not happen. It has nothing to do with when the soul is united.

    Does you spiritual director really know what you are doing on the Internet spreading errors about the faith and the Church?


    When exactly does the soul unites with the body, Nado?


    That has only been surmised, and never established.


    Respond the question Nado. Do not be evasive.

    When exactly does the soul unites with the body?

    Quote

    when:
     adverb ˈhwen, ˈwen, (h)wən  

    : at what time

    : at, in, or during which

    : at or during which time






    I just directly answered you. What grade level is your vocabulary?


    No. You did not.

    Because you are afraid to recognize that you have already lost this argument. You probably do believe that the soul is united to the body at time of conception but you will not say so because you know beforehand the question that is coming:

    So do you disagree with what the Catechism of Trent teaches here which clearly states that the embryo is basically a souless body at time of conception, but the soul is united to it only after a certain time?.  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16