17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNonsense. You have joined no1 on A and not-A Boulevard.
The same section VI says that the Church has not discouraged those who say that Hell is metaphorical. So, at the moment, neither side is in theological error. Both views are acceptable.
You can't hold one position as "absolutely true and correct" while granting that the opposite position is not in error.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt is Nemesio's contention (or your conclusion based on something Nemesio wrote) that the Church teaches children something opposed to doctrine.
Why teach them something in direct opposition to doctrine?
I don't buy the argument that 'probably' is too big a concept for a child to understand, and thus the teachers opt to convery certainty instead. Any child that can understand 'certainty' can understand 'probably'.
Dr. S
P.S. I'm assuming your No and Yes refer to the last two questions I posed.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe point is - the Church has not actually declared either view "absolutely true and correct". Not to say that it never might. Neither view contradicts anything else the Church has declared or taught. So, at the moment, either view is acceptable and will not be an impediment to salvation.
Nonsense. You have joined no1 on A and not-A Boulevard.
You can't hold one position as "absolutely true and correct" while granting that the opposite position is not in error.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo it ain't and neither is this post:
No. My original elaboration is consistent with the definition I gave later.
I want to know if you believe that God has a decision process, or if he assigns people to hell arbitarily
Clearly you are asking there if God makes decisions based on A) A rational decision process; OR B) By whim or caprice or what we lawyers call "arbitarily". Your later definition clearly changed the meaning to something akin to the decisions being non-reviewable, a seperate and distinct concept. I hate to nitpick, but you did change the meaning of the term you were using in midargument.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerDid you read this quote I cited: "According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."
The point is - the Church has not actually declared either view "absolutely true and correct".
Are you saying that they hold it as absolutely true and correct, they have said that they hold it as absolutely true and correct, but they haven't gone so far as to declare it absolutely true and correct?
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMy latter definition mentioned nothing of reviewability. Only my analogy did, such analogy existing solely to refute your contention that my definition of 'arbitrary' made all applications of a judge's discretion arbitrary.
No it ain't and neither is this post:
Your later definition clearly changed the meaning to something akin to the decisions being non-reviewable, a seperate and distinct concept.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat children are taught:
Does the church teach its children that they will probably or certainly go to heaven?
1. People who die in a state of communion with God will end up in Heaven.
2. People who die in a state of mortal sin (i.e. separation from God) will end up in Hell.
3. No one can say with certainty whether a certain person is in Hell, because we do not know the state of the soul of the person at the time of his/her death.
4. One can say with certainty that some people are in Heaven - these are the saints.
5. As long as one remains true to the Catholic faith in thought, word and deed, one is in communion with God.
I'll have to check up further on "informed conscience", but it applies to those who don't remain true to the Catholic faith and does not apply in this case.
I'm not sure where the "probably" came from.
17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWho is "We"? The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official tool of Church teaching. It has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, true, but that is merely a statement that its contents are not opposed to existing dogma and will not put the soul in peril.
Did you read this quote I cited: "According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. [b]We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."
Are you saying that t ...[text shortened]... t gone so far as to declare it absolutely true and correct?[/b]
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was using it synonymously with 'likely', which Nemesio introduced by saying that the Church teaches that Baptism and belief in Jesus increases the likelihood of one's salavation.
What children are taught:
1. People who die in a state of communion with God will end up in Heaven.
2. People who die in a state of mortal sin (i.e. separation from God) will end up in Hell.
3. No one can say with certainty whether a certain person is in Hell, because we do not know the state of the soul of the person at the time of his/her death ...[text shortened]... tholic faith and does not apply in this case.
I'm not sure where the "probably" came from.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRefer the "clean slate" argument I made in an earlier post. Likelihood here refers to the probability of a person dying in a state of grace; not the probability that his application will be "approved" by God.
I was using it synonymously with 'likely', which Nemesio introduced by saying that the Church teaches that Baptism and belief in Jesus increases the likelihood of one's salavation.
17 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIts statements are not opposed to dogma.
Who is "We"? The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official tool of Church teaching. It has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, true, but that is merely a statement that its contents are not opposed to existing dogma and will not put the soul in peril.
It follows that the statement "We hold X to be absolutely true" is not opposed to dogma.
Now, "X is absolutely true" is semantically equivalent to "It is not possible that X is false".
Therefore, "It is not possible that X is false" is not opposed to dogma.
Therefore, dogma cannot also hold "It is possible that X is false," for if it did,
"It is not possible that X is false" would be opposed to dogma.
Therefore dogma cannot allow both views on hell, while claiming that the Enclyclopedia is not opposed to dogma. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Encyclopedia is opposed to dogma, or dogma holds a literal hell of fire as absolutely true and correct.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo, I believe it is fair to say that your interpretation of Catholic doctrine has essential differences from Nemesio's. In particular, you believe man can do things to guarantee his salvation - namely, ensure that he dies in a state of grace -- while Nemesio believes that doctrince says that man can never ensure his salvation. Is this a fair statement?
Refer the "clean slate" argument I made in an earlier post. Likelihood here refers to the probability of a person dying in a state of grace; not the probability that his application will be "approved" by God.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Its statements are not opposed to dogma.
It follows that the statement "We hold X to be absolutely true" is not opposed to dogma.
So far so good.
Now, "X is absolutely true" is semantically equivalent to "It is not possible that X is false".
Except that the statement is not "X is absolutely true" but "We hold X to be absolutely true".
"We hold" is a statement of personal (collective) belief - not a quoting or interpretation of Church dogma.
Therefore, "It is not possible that X is false" is not opposed to dogma.
Therefore, dogma cannot also hold "It is possible that X is false," for if it did,
"It is not possible that X is false" would be opposed to dogma.
But dogma does not hold, "It is possible that X is false" (which is equivalent to the statment "It is possible that X is true"😉. Dogma makes no assertion to the truth value of X whatsoever. Hence, "It is not possible that X is false" is not opposed to dogma.
17 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy view is that, from first principles man cannot do anything to guarantee salvation - since salvation requires grace which is a gift from God. However, given that (as I understand it) God guarantees grace (the guarantee also being free of compulsion) to those who do certain things, man can do those things to ensure salvation.
So, I believe it is fair to say that your interpretation of Catholic doctrine has essential differences from Nemesio's. In particular, you believe man can do things to guarantee his salvation - namely, ensure that he dies in a state of grace -- while Nemesio believes that doctrince says that man can never ensure his salvation. Is this a fair statement?
I'm not sure if this is Nemesio's view.