Author Topic: The Revolution Takes Hold Under Pius XII (Read 17236 times)

SJB · « **Reply #175 on:** November 09, 2012, 11:31:23 AM »

This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:

Quote from: bowler

It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental. You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not. In the end, not all members are saved, and not all who are saved were members. However, all who are saved were within the Church.

You don't want to believe this in your current state, and I am certainly not capable of convincing you.

bowler · « **Reply #176 on:** November 09, 2012, 11:33:06 AM »

BIG CORRECTION:

Quote from: bowler

You have a habit of constantly going outside of the subject to defend your ideas by threats of sin. But your theories of sin and disobedience are based on the your own erroneuos theological speculations.

Let me say it once more:

It is not a sin to believe "that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them that which the Almighty has predestined."

It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

bowler · « **Reply #177 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:02:32 PM »

Quote from: SJB

This is a waste of time but I'll make a few points:

Quote from: bowler
It is not a sin to understand the nine dogmas on EENS exactly as they are clearly written. That all non-Catholics who die as non-members of the Church go to perdition.

It is not a sin to believe the dogma of the Church that only the sacramentally baptized are members of the body.

The dogma is that outside the Church there is no salvation. This does not mention membership and that's not accidental.

That's a new one on me, it's up to you to prove it.

Quote from: SJB

You have argued earlier that even members of the Church are outside Her, when they clearly are not.

P.S.- I never said that "even members of the Church are outside Her'.

That's a total strawman, not worth answering. There's a whole thread on the subject to which you contributed. It is very clear what I wrote. I don't see anyone saying anything anymore after I posted my sources. Just because you never learned something, does not mean that it is wrong.

SJB · « **Reply #178 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:43:28 PM »

The dogma is outside the Church, there is no salvation. You need to show how actual membership is involved, and please show your sources. That is, an authority who explains the dogma the way you supposed learned it. I'm not interested in your doing your own theology.

Nishant · « **Reply #179 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:54:19 PM »

Sigh. It's not I who condemned your opinion, it's the Church herself that did so long ago. Bowler, I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to these questions.

1. Do you know that the opinion that Catholics ought to believe only dogmas is condemned? Do you accept Tuas Libenter of Pope Pius IX, that Catholics are bound to believe not only the dogmas of the Church but also what are held by theologians to be certain conclusions derived from revealed truths? Do you agree that denying these latter would merit censures and have been proscribed by the Magisterium in the past?

Quote from: Bowler

Baptism of desire is just a theological construct that answers a flawed question: "What happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can be baptized".

This is completely wrong.

2. Baptism of desire is merely an extraordinary means of baptism. It merely asserts that the effects of baptism, which is justification, can be received in extraordinary circuмstances without the matter and the form of the sacrament by the dispensation of God who has so instituted it.

I could take many examples, but I'll stick with Cornelius. You don't seem to understand the point about Cornelius at all. Consider this syllogism,

i. Justification cannot now take place without baptism (Trent)
ii. Cornelius received justification before water baptism (which you accept)
iii. Therefore, from i and ii, it follows that Cornelius received an extraordinary means of baptism.

Do you deny i or ii?

This suffices to disprove your claim that there are no extraordinary means of baptism.

St.Peter was preaching about the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Cornelius did not desire baptism explicitly, but only implicitly, by implicit desire is meant that he had the right disposition of the will that was resolved to do all that God required and so God animated it with perfect charity.

And this the Prince of the Apostles himself bears witness to saying "They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have". Only after this were they baptized in water.

This is also the testimony of Tradition about Cornelius.

3. Lastly, only the following two points remain.

i. All who die in the state of mortal sin and death are lost in eternity, and equally certainly,
ii. All who die in the state of justification and grace are saved.

Do you actually deny one of these?