Author Topic: You want to talk about intellectual dishonesty? (Read 5652 times)

CM · « **on:** September 07, 2009, 04:09:47 AM »

Who agrees with this statement?

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

This statement?

"Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

How about the following statement?

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

And finally do you believe that these statements refer to;

a) The writings of the saints
b) The individual saints interpretations of Scripture
c) The fallible capacity of the pope
d) The infallible definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium

?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2009, 07:09:24 AM »

Go talk about it with St Alphonsus, CM.

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2009, 08:10:42 AM »

Your inability to reconcile these points is manifest, and your attempt to dismiss them, under the guise of dismissing me is telling rather in that regard.

CMMM · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2009, 08:39:51 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Who agrees with this statement?

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

This statement?

"Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

How about the following statement?

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

And finally do you believe that these statements refer to;

a) The writings of the saints - Useful and necessary for understanding the original meaning and sense of dogma.
b) The individual saints interpretations of Scripture
c) The fallible capacity of the pope
d) The infallible definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium

?

I'll go with D.

Now, drop the 'bomb' that will show me how, now that I have agreed with D, it is impossible that I don't accept your position and I am an obstinate heretic.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2009, 09:08:12 AM »

Very well. Here it is again.

For those who believe it is a dogma that unbaptized catechumens can be saved:

There is ONE decree from Trent that you use to try to prove this, but I have already explained to you that your interpretation of it is heretical, and goes against common sense.

Now I will show you proof from the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Quote from: Pope Pius IX, at the Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, infallibly

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

Bear in mind, now, that according to this decree above, no dogma can ever contradict another dogma. The solemn decrees themselves are dogmas.

Here is what you are now faced with. Two choices. You can choose to believe that I am mistaken about the dogmatic decrees from the following Councils, which in their wordings, do not leave room for exceptions:

Lateran IV (one decree)
Vienne (one decree)
Florence (two decrees)
Trent (two canons combined, and another decree)

OR you can accept the correct position, which is to profess and believe that these decrees are meant by God exactly as He had the pope say them, because God is infallible and the pope receives that charism from Him when uttering such decrees.

If you accept this, and still cannot intellectually reconcile the decree from Trent, or think that I am misrepresenting it, then I invite you to consider, once again, the decree, which states that there is never to be an abandonment of the meaning of a declaration of the Holy See, and that such a definition is irreformable.

Now all you have to do is pay attention to the history.

Quote from: Trent came AFTER the decree from Lateran IV, which

One universal Church of the FAITHFUL, outside of which no one at all is saved

Quote from: Trent came AFTER the decree from Vienne, which

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father, etc.

Quote from: Trent came AFTER the decree from Florence, which

Holy baptism is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church. Unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.

Quote from: Trent came AFTER the decree from Florence, which

ALL those outside the Catholic Church... go into the fire... unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives

Therefore, you would have to argue that Trent reformed the meaning of the decrees I have just presented you, if you were to believe that it teaches baptism of desire, but even this proposition is heretical.

If you still have a hard time reconciling the decree from Trent after all this, then all you have to do is what faithful Catholics have always done. Suspend your own judgment, and assent to that of the Holy See, which has stated that Truth cannot contradict Truth, and that all of it's ex cathedra the decrees are irreformable.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2009, 12:52:53 PM »

CM, what you refuse to even acknowledge is that these Papal and conciliar decrees you cite about how baptism is necessary are held by all those who believe in BoD, which included those Popes, who never reprimanded or corrected the many churchmen who taught BoD. Saying that you must be baptized, or that the Church consists of a baptized faithful, does not contradict BoD.

This is not God denying Himself, any more than Jesus allowing his disciples to walk on water was "denying Himself" by changing the laws of the universe He put into place i.e. that men cannot walk on water with their bare feet.

How can I ram this through your perfervid but somehow likeable skull?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2009, 01:13:41 PM »

The only evidence I have seen against BoD is what I read in Butler's Lives of the Saints, that the early saints seemed to believe that those who died unbaptized would go to hell.

I realized just now, what if what sounded like hell in their descriptions was really PURGATORY? Unless I'm mistaken, purgatory is a spot in hell anyway, with fire and misery and gruesome suffering. What if they simply feared the unbaptized catechumen who died would descend into purgatory and have to be punished in the flames for the remission of original sin?

This ties in with St. Thomas and shows the Church has always taught the same thing.

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2009, 01:29:02 PM »

Quote

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

This statement?

"Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

How about the following statement?

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

Apparently it hasn't dawned on your pea-sized brain that it is you who hasn't grasped what does and does not contradict catholic dogma. You've already conceded God can supply for the effects of certain sacraments without contradicting other doctrine. The Church has taught that supplying for the effects of baptism under certain conditions doesn't contradict its necessity because it is the action of God Himself supplying for the same effects. The fact that God can do this and actually does do this with any amount of regularity are two different things. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know who may or may not receive this form of baptism, only that it can happen sometimes. If you wouldn't be such a flaming heretic, you might be able to see this and move on with life.

CM · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2009, 03:08:51 PM »

Even if a pope was aware of someone teaching BoD, as long as he did not teach it or explicitly publicly approve it himself, even if he was silent, this does not mean that it is not heresy. It simply means that the pope either didn't know the answer, or believed it but was prevented from ever publicly revealing such.

But the fact is baptism of desire posits an exception to infallible statements that leave no room for exceptions.

Baptism of desire did not start appearing in catechisms until the last couple hundred years, so the opinion does not appear to have been spread abroad much until this time.

The Church Tradition always held that unbaptized catechumens were not to be given Christian burial, nor to have Masses said for them.

And person is not a heretic until they publicly express an opinion contrary to dogma (no pope ever publicly expressed the BoD opinion, until antipope Pius XII, who was heretical on other points anyway).

Can a person ever be saved without water baptism? No.

Can God do all things by the power of His Divinity? Yes.

Therefore if a person is to be saved, can God get them the sacrament of baptism before their death, even by miraculous means?

Yes.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:20:15 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Your inability to reconcile these points is manifest...

That is a KEEPER, as THE problem with your position is a complete inability to understand that there is, IN FACT, perfect harmony between what St Alphonsus, St Thomas, et alii teach and the dogmatic pronouncements.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:23:33 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

But the fact is baptism of desire posits an exception to infallible statements that leave no room for exceptions.

It does nothing of the kind, CM. You just fail utterly to comprehend the harmony between various complimentary teachings that SEEM opposed.

CM · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:23:44 AM »

Explain it to me. Show me what they teach and how it does not posit a recession from the definitions themselves.

Please and thank you.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:25:23 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

...complimentary teachings that SEEM opposed.

Sorry, as it is "complementary" that is the correct word above.

CM · « **Reply #13 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:26:01 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

various complEmentary teachings that SEEM opposed.

I agree they certainly do, don't they? :wink:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:27:18 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Explain it to me. Show me what they teach and how it does not posit a recession from the definitions themselves.

Please and thank you.

I will be glad to do as much as I can, when I can. For now, I have to get busy with my job, and with some other personal pursuits. Once I get on a more normal schedule, which will be soon, I will be delighted to engage in a more detailed discussion with you. Godspeed, my friend.