2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYet, when I quote earlier theologians, including saints and Popes, you cry foul. How perfectly contemptible.
Yet, when I quote earlier theologians, including saints and Popes, you cry foul. How perfectly contemptible.
What "new information" have you received? Please share it with us.
Oh yes. How "perfectly contemptible" of me to point out that the opinions of theologians (including saints and Popes) is not the authoritative teaching of the Church and is not binding as matters of faith on Catholics. How "perfectly contemptible" of me to "cry foul" when you try to draw an equivalence between these and official Church teaching.
EDIT: For the life of me I can't figure out why you and Scribs have such a problem distinguishing between a person's views in an official capacity and his private views. Must be an American thing that I just don't understand.
What "new information" have you received? Please share it with us.
Read my earlier posts. I have better things to do than repeat myself for your edification.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo it is contemptible for you to keep changing the rules. If one tries to evaluate RCC doctrine based on standard meanings, we're ignoring the "context" because they weren't written in the 20th Century. But when pre-20th Century theologians, saints and Popes included, are quoted to provide such context, you refuse to give them any credence at all.
[b]Yet, when I quote earlier theologians, including saints and Popes, you cry foul. How perfectly contemptible.
Oh yes. How "perfectly contemptible" of me to point out that the opinions of theologians (including saints and Popes) is not the authoritative teaching of the Church and is not binding as matters of faith on Catholics. How "perfectly ...[text shortened]... my earlier posts. I have better things to do than repeat myself for your edification.[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot really. Your notion of necessity is bounded by its direct translation in formal logic.
Then you need to take an introductory course in critical thinking, in particular to revise your notions of coherence and necessity.
Formal language is not necessary to avoid equivocation. A sincere and clear-thinking person will automatically avoid equivocation even when using common language. Equivocation arises out of insincerity or confusion. ...[text shortened]... . You can see it at work in every last one of lucifershammer's arguments about Catholicism.
In formal logic the argument of the RCC would be:
Let
E: Exceptions
B: Baptism
S: Salvation
If ~E then ~B => ~S
That can be more clearly expressed for the layman as 'Baptism is a necessary condition for salvation, except in these cases...'.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially since exception already implies that the original statement is not valid in all cases.
Originally posted by PalynkaExcept the RCC has never said there were any exceptions.
Not really. Your notion of necessity is bounded by its direct translation in formal logic.
In formal logic the argument of the RCC would be:
Let
E: Exceptions
B: Baptism
S: Salvation
If ~E then ~B => ~S
That can be more clearly expressed for the layman as 'Baptism is a necessary condition for salvation, except in these cases...'.
I don' ...[text shortened]... cially since exception already implies that the original statement is not valid in all cases.
Originally posted by lucifershammerBoo Hoo.
Perhaps you should try reading what is being written instead of running to your third-grade nephew for the latest in playground taunts and abuses. That way you might actually learn something.
EDIT: Perhaps you should also try making specific rebuttals to arguments than general lob-a-few-and-see-if-something-sticks insults.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderExceptions to their statement that ~B => ~S ?
Except the RCC has never said there were any exceptions.
Yes, they have. They say that unbaptized children are not necessarily doomed, therefore this is an exception to the statement that non-Baptism necessarily implies non-Salvation.
Edit -
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, they haven't. They have said you can "hope" they are not.
Exceptions to their statement that ~B => ~S ?
Yes, they have. They say that unbaptized children are not necessarily doomed, therefore this is an exception to the statement that non-Baptism necessarily implies non-Salvation.
They state over and over again that Baptism is a necessity for Salvation including in the documents you cite.
EDIT: Same quote (6 times now?). Read it this time.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut when pre-20th Century theologians, saints and Popes included, are quoted to provide such context, you refuse to give them any credence at all.
No it is contemptible for you to keep changing the rules. If one tries to evaluate RCC doctrine based on standard meanings, we're ignoring the "context" because they weren't written in the 20th Century. But when pre-20th Century theologians, saints and Popes included, are quoted to provide such context, you refuse to give them any credence at all.
First, it's a strawman to say I refuse to give them any credence at all. I've done no such thing. I've only said that their views are not the same thing as official Church teaching (a point you persistently ignore).
Second, none of the theologians, saints or Popes you've cited provide any context to (for instance) the Trent canon on the necessity of baptism in such a way that explains how the term "necessary" was used when the Trent Fathers knew and accepted non-sacramental remission of original sin. So, if you're trying to provide "context", you're picking entirely the wrong set of citations do so.
Third, if you're citing historical opinions to show that the current view of the Church was not the dominant one historically, then that's fine. No one denies it. Doctrine develops. Previously admissible theories may no longer be so.
Originally posted by no1marauderNonsense. There have been exceptions going back all the way to the Early Church martyrs. That Trent does not explicitly provide a complete list of exceptions does not mean it wasn't implicitly assuming there were.
Except the RCC has never said there were any exceptions.
Originally posted by no1marauderClaiming that they don't know is already an exception to the statement that it necessarily implies non-salvation.
No, they haven't. They have said you can "hope" they are not.
They state over and over again that Baptism is a necessity for Salvation including in the documents you cite.
If they don't know for that case, it's because it doesn't necessarily imply. It might, but it's not a necessity.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThose are not exceptions to Baptism. Try actually reading your own doctrine; Baptism by desire and blood IS NOT an exception to the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Your "logic" is truly a joke.
Nonsense. There have been exceptions going back all the way to the Early Church martyrs. That Trent does not explicitly provide a complete list of exceptions does not mean it wasn't implicitly assuming there were.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs long as you keep making statement about the RCC's position that contradict this text, I'm forced to keep quoting it.
EDIT: Same quote (6 times now?). Read it this time.
I guess that makes it at least 6 times that you've misrepresented the RCC's position. Could that be a...strawman technique? Gasp. Horror.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis time I didn't quote Baptism of desire nor Baptism of blood. Those are 1259 and 1258. Stop attacking what isn't there.
Those are not exceptions to Baptism. Try actually reading your own doctrine; Baptism by desire and blood IS NOT an exception to the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Your "logic" is truly a joke.