Calling out ivanhoe

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very well then. If I took a poll of 1000 Catholics who attended weekly Mass but performed no theological study beyond that, how many would you expect to respond that
belief in Jesus is a necessary condition for entering Heaven? How many would you expect to report that Baptism is a necessary condition for entering Heaven?

'...and performed no theological study...'

I would say 999.9 of a 1000, or 9999 in 10000.

That having been said, I would say that none of these who had
performed 'no theological study' would have heard of Dominus
Iesus. Indeed, I would guess that only 50% of priests would have
even glanced at it, much less the % who know its contents.

That having been said, this is hardly surprising; just look at the
theological infelcities rampant in this forum from 'Christians' who claim
to know both their Bible and church history.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
'...and performed no theological study...'

I would say 999.9 of a 1000, or 9999 in 10000.

That having been said, I would say that none of these who had
performed 'no theological study' would have heard of Dominus
Iesus ...[text shortened]... who claim
to know both their Bible and church history.

Nemesio

Is it reasonable to say that something is part of the Catholic doctrine if almost no members and only half the clergy are aware of it, or maybe even believe the opposite case to be in accordance with doctrine?

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is a massive call out. My knowledge of the Cathechism is not
comprehensive, but I will give it my best and hope that Brother Ivanhoe
or Brother Lucifershammer will amend any errors I make on behalf of
their faith. This promises to be a long post.

1. The Roman Catholic Church is explicit is stating that they are the
One True Church. That is, ...[text shortened]... ndpoint.

I hope that this helps to explain some of what is being discussed here.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "Ivanhoe seems to suggest that I have misread this, but the document is clear."

Have I ? Where ? When ? How ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "Ivanhoe seems to suggest that I have misread this, but the document is clear."

Have I ? Where ? When ? How ?

Hey, there you are. Accept or Reject? This thread will not die until you answer,

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it reasonable to say that something is part of the Catholic doctrine if almost no members and only half the clergy are aware of it, or maybe even believe the opposite case to be in accordance with doctrine?

As it this aspect of doctrine is very subtle, I do not find it surprising
that people don't know about it. I mean, I suspect that Ivanhoe
doesn't have every entry of the Catechism memorized.

I mean, how many people, if asked if lying is wrong, will answer the
question precisely with appropriate caveats? Not many.

As the Church teaches that it is a 'really, really, really, really' good
idea to be a member of Holy Mother Church, the inclusion of the
rather subtle escape clause is excusible.

It would be cumbersome to say, 'Baptism is a critical Sacrament. In
99.99999% of cases, it is a requirement for salvation.' Such
such distinctions are the province of obscure theologians and people
who read their writing.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "Ivanhoe seems to suggest that I have misread this, but the document is clear."

Have I ? Where ? When ? How ?

Perhaps you genuinely do not recall, but, when I observed that the
RCC claims that salvation is only through the mediation of the Church
as per Dominus Iesus, you instructed me to read two other
encyclicals which I had already read. As such, you suggested that I
was incorrectly representing the passage I had quoted, though I
disagree.

You didn't assert I was wrong, you just suggested that there was more
than meets the eye in that particular text, though I opine that it was
sufficiently clear and did not require further study (which I had done
anyway).

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Hey, there you are. Accept or Reject? This thread will not die until you answer,

I think that he could answer that my summary is an accurate
representation of the doctrinal stance of the RCC, if he chose, or he
could argue that I had misrepresented something about Her.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think that he could answer that my summary is an accurate
representation of the doctrinal stance of the RCC, if he chose, or he
could argue that I had misrepresented something about Her.

Nemesio

My question to ivanhoe goes a step further. I want to know if he personally agrees with the claims, not merely if he finds that you have interpreted them correctly.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
My question to ivanhoe goes a step further. I want to know if he personally agrees with the claims, not merely if he finds that you have interpreted them correctly.

Interestingly enough, even if he agrees I have interpretted them
correctly, he need not agree with them and could still be in a 'state of
grace.' Review my reference to informed conscience above; if
Ivanhoe has contemplated, meditated, and prayed about the
teachings of Holy Mother Church and finds that he cannot, in good
conscience, agree with them, he is obligated to attend to his
conscience. This is another subtle 'escape clause' which the Church
has and almost never teaches. Indeed, I have never heard a sermon
on it and only knew one priest to ever discuss it in the context of a
semi-public discussion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Hey, there you are. Accept or Reject? This thread will not die until you answer,

Dear Doctor, it seems you want to make a computer program that is able to decide who will go eternally to heaven, temporarily to purgatory, or eternally to hell. There isn't such a program, I assure you ..... so you can stop your queste for it.
Saint Peter holds the Key to the heavens. Maybe you should talk to him, or rather start listening to him talking, about the Key .......

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Dear Doctor, it seems you want to make a computer program that is able to decide who will go eternally to heaven, temporarily to purgatory, or eternally to hell. There isn't such a program, I assure you ..... so you can stop your queste f ...[text shortened]... m, or rather start listening to him talking, about the Key .......

I don't want to create a program.

I want to know if you believe that God has a decision process, or if he assigns people to hell arbitarily; if he has a process, what your faith teaches you about it and the extent to which you believe those teachings.

You say that Peter holds the keys. Does he employ a decision process, or does he use the keys arbitrarily?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't want to create a program.

I want to know if you believe that God has a decision process, or if he assigns people to hell arbitarily; if he has a process, what your faith teaches you about it and the extent to which you believe those teachings.

You say that Peter holds the keys. Does he employ a decision process, or does he use the keys arbitrarily?

I think what an RCer would say is that:

1) God does have a decision process;
2) The RCC does not know every part of the process; but
3) The RCC is a critical but not essential part of it;
4) Adherence to RCC teachings will increase the likelihood of salvation.

I would be interested in knowing if Ivanhoe agrees with this and my
above lengthy summary of what I understand to be RC teaching.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't want to create a program.

I want to know if you believe that God has a decision process, or if he assigns people to hell arbitarily; if he has a process, what your faith teaches you about it and the extent to which you believe those teachings.

You say that Peter holds the keys. Does he employ a decision process, or does he use the keys arbitrarily?

I have read this thread and I don't understand your point. The RCC's position, solidly backed by Scripture, is that your original question is unanswerable; men cannot know what God will decide on Judgement Day. Jesus told us what we need to do to obtain salvation (Matthew 25) but whether we ever satisfy those conditions to the satisfaction of God is left to God. It is not like Darfius and RBHILL assert that you can say some words and hocuspocus you're saved and it is not like what you are saying either that there is a checklist that you can meet. It is a judgement which presumes that nothing is settled.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Judgement...judgement...

Are you sure that you're an attorney?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is a judgement which presumes that nothing is settled.

So, it is your claim that the decision is arbitrary, in the sense that God is not bound by any rules and may cast people into hell at a whim, correct? There is nothing you can do to ensure your salvation, correct? If this is so obviously true and consistent with official doctrine, why does the Church teach children the direct opposite of this?