Limbo

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, on page 5 you said this, LH:

the fact remains that at no point does he say that it is a [b]logical impossibility for unbaptised children to be saved

But when it was shown that it is a "logical impossibility" to say Baptism is a necessity for salvation yet there is a possibility for salvation without it, you simply c ...[text shortened]... s and said the RCC wasn't talking in the "logical" sense!

Goalposts moved again![/b]

I didn't say (or imply) the Pope was speaking using formal logic (EDIT: he doesn't use any technical terms from formal logic anyway) in the first case either, so I don't know what you're crying about. My use of "logical impossibility" simply points out that the Pope only ruled out salvation by martyrdom and catechumenical desire for infants; he didn't say that unbaptised infants could not be saved.

You really need to think through before writing something.

EDIT: Of course, it's a logical impossibility to say that Baptism is a logical necessity for salvation yet there is a possibility for salvation without it. But the Church never said that Baptism was a logical necessity for salvation in all cases (CCC 1257 makes it clear that the necessity applies to those who have received the Gospel and have had the opportunity to receive the sacrament). [note for vistesd]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I didn't say (or imply) the Pope was speaking using formal logic (EDIT: he doesn't use any technical terms from formal logic anyway) in the first case either, so I don't know what you're crying about. My use of "logical impossibility" simply points out that the Pope only ruled out salvation by martyrdom and catechumenical desire for infants; he didn't ed the Gospel and have had the opportunity to receive the sacrament). [note for vistesd]

You continue to be the most intellectually dishonest poster on this site.

In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open.

You better go back to "Simon says" on this one.

You and Palynka keep trying to read out of context and ahistorically. "The Church never said ........" is a transparent lie as shown by the Council of Trent. You're a joke.

EDIT: The Council of Trent said: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"

So you're a liar.

And NO ONE at the Council of Trent would have believed in any possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Could you be more disingenous?

1257 deals with sacramental baptism (i.e. Baptism). In 1258, the distinction is drawn between Baptism and non-sacramental "baptisms":

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism [LH: i.e. sacramental baptism] [/i][LH: sacramental baptism again] without being a sacrament.

Similarly with 1259.

Could you be a bigger liar? Adding your own brackets in an attempt to change the meaning is beyond even your low standards. Baptism by blood and Baptism by desire are still Baptism, twit.

I'm kinda sick of dealing with the same falsehoods; could you come up with some new ones please?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you be a bigger liar? Adding your own brackets in an attempt to change the meaning is beyond even your low standards.

I thought about a detailed word-by-word analysis of CCC 1258 to show how each of my comments was not only justified, but the most obvious interpretation (and in the first and third cases, the only logical interpretation) of the word 'Baptism' -- but then I decided against it; even a grade school student for whom English is a third language can see that you're spouting nonsense in this case.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I thought about a detailed word-by-word analysis of CCC 1258 to show how each of my comments was not only justified, but the most obvious interpretation (and in the first and third cases, the only logical interpretation) of the word 'Baptism' -- but then I decided against it; even a grade school student for whom English is a third language can see that you're spouting nonsense in this case.

Explain again how the meaning of the word Baptism is limited to one meaning when the text itself uses it explictly in different contexts? You obviously never made it through grade school.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You continue to be the most intellectually dishonest poster on this site.

In the present dispensation [b]there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, c that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"

So you're a liar.[/b]

"Liar, liar pants on fire". Maybe you should stick to your company on the third grade playground.

1. Re: the Papal quote

Note carefully what he's saying ("there is no other means of communicating this life to the child" ) - he's talking about the Church and this is perfectly consistent with what the Church herself says ("We don't know of any other means" etc.)

2. Re: Trent

As Pal and I have repeatedly pointed out, it's the "optional" bit (i.e. refusing it or being denied it when one has the opportunity) that's relevant there.

This is old ground. You continue to painfully read Church documents as though they were legal contracts where every clause can be taken out of context.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Explain again how the meaning of the word Baptism is limited to one meaning when the text itself uses it explictly in different contexts? You obviously never made it through grade school.

Read the bloody passage again. It's quite clear which form of Baptism is being referred to in each use of the word.

EDIT: Or get your third grade nephew to read it. I'm sure he'll get it before you do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Liar, liar pants on fire". Maybe you should stick to your company on the third grade playground.

1. Re: the Papal quote

Note carefully what he's saying ("there is no other means of communicating this life to the child" ) - he's talking about the Church and this is perfectly consistent with what the Church herself says ("We don't know of as though they were legal contracts where every clause can be taken out of context.

The Council specifically said what "optional" i.e. "necessary for salvation" meant foreclosing your and Pal's attempts to rewrite the meaning. Your gall to say I'm reading Trent "out of context" is mind boggling; we both know that if you had made the argument you're making now at Trent you would have wound up in front of the Inquistion.

EDIT: Read this real sloooooooow:

And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Read the bloody passage again. It's quite clear which form of Baptism is being referred to in each use of the word.

EDIT: Or get your third grade nephew to read it. I'm sure he'll get it before you do.

Your attempts at insults are as pathetic as your twisting and turning to try to change the clear meaning of passages. It's even more hilarious that just a few months ago you said that fetuses couldn't go to Heaven "because of original sin"! Yet today you're trying to gloss over a couple thousand years of Church teaching and the explicit words of infallible declarations to reach a contrary conclusion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your stupidity is amazing. The Church doesn't state there are any exceptions that it knows of and says that EXPLICITLY. You take that statement to mean that the Church is saying there ARE exceptions!

The mind reels.

EDIT: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude

I wasn't addressing you. Maybe you should keep your own advice.

And you continuously restart your argument when you arrive at the same dead end, have forced me to quote and explain many times the same thing.

It's useless to discuss with someone that claims that the RCC's position is different from the claims of the Vatican, even after it has been demonstrated time and time again with my quotes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your attempts at insults are as pathetic as your twisting and turning to try to change the clear meaning of passages. It's even more hilarious that just a few months ago you said that fetuses couldn't go to Heaven "because of original sin"! Yet today you're trying to gloss over a couple thousand years of Church teaching and the explicit words of infallible declarations to reach a contrary conclusion.

More shoot-randomly-and-hope-something-sticks. Find one reasonable poster (say, Nemesio or vistesd) who thinks I'm "twisting and turning to try to change the clear meaning" of CCC 1258 with my comments on it.

Go ahead.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
More shoot-randomly-and-hope-something-sticks. Find one reasonable poster (say, Nemesio or vistesd) who thinks I'm "twisting and turning to try to change the clear meaning" of CCC 1258 with my comments on it.

Go ahead.

I think you are.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
More shoot-randomly-and-hope-something-sticks. Find one reasonable poster (say, Nemesio or vistesd) who thinks I'm "twisting and turning to try to change the clear meaning" of CCC 1258 with my comments on it.

I think your reading of 1258 is consistent with modern Roman Catholic theology (as far as I
can tell).

However, modern Roman Catholic theology is inconsistent with historic Roman Catholic
theology. This would not be a problem in and of itself except for the claim of infallibility to
which the Church subscribes. That is, if the Church said, 'You know what, we had an incomplete
revelation with our theological pronouncements for the Council of Trent. Of themselves, they
present an insufficient and consequently inaccurate picture of Baptism (and perhaps other
theological topics). We have now presented the best (but still perhaps incomplete) picture that
our prayer and revelation has provided us,' you would find I would have no objection to the topic
at hand.

However, it is specifically because (some) Roman Catholics want to state that the Council of
Trent was infallibly correct (in the absence of some pretty notable and critical exceptions which
would apply to a majority of the world from the late 16th century on) that I find myself irritated.

In particular, the Church benefited monetarily because of this 16th century pronouncement,
abusing people's faiths through indulgences and the purchases of Mass for the release of souls from
Purgatory into Paradise. While (theologically appropriate) changes in these stances have changed,
no apology for the error of the early presentation has ever been offered, when all the while the
Church laughed its way to the bank.

It is this unapologetic equivocation which bothers me, LH. I can handle that the Church (any
faith) will pronounce something and pray about it and discern that it was erroneous. I can't handle
that a Church will change its mind and claim it was right both times.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What does "wrong" mean in the sentence above? Do you mean factually incorrect, doctrinally incorrect (this is the only one that an imprimatur is supposed to cover -- that too at the time of publishing), morally incorrect, something else?

I think when I wrote imprimatur, I was thinking of nihil obstat; the former merely
means it has the permission of the RCC to be printed, the second is what indicates that it is free
from doctrinal error (right?).

Whichever one I meant (the error one), my point was simply that if the Church can review
a text, give its blessing that it is free from doctrinal error and subsequently determine that its
literal meaning was erroneous, then what good is it?

The example someone gave with the Supreme Court doesn't hold. If the court holds that a decision
was unConstitutional and reverses it, it is saying that it determined that the original decision was
incorrect. The Church does not (or is not permitted) to do this because of its claims to infallibility.

As I wrote above, I would have no problem with the Church's saying, 'You know what, we goofed
on this topic.' I can't possibly imagine that this would scatter the flock, to admit error in interpreting
the inscrutable Divine. But, for whatever reason, the Church insists that error is simply impossible
when it makes (infallible) pronouncements on things. Bishop Wojtila noted this in his co-authored
minority report on contraception, as I've cited before.

That's what this was all about? Just to knock off the doctrine of infallibility on a technicality?

It isn't an insignificant issue; it's a source of authority for the Church: 'We're never wrong when we
make X-style announcements on morality and faith.' And infallibility means without fail.
There can be no 'technicality' when dealing with it. We aren't talking about a typographical error
here. We're talking about a 16th-century statement of faith which has since been demonstrated to
be erroneous in its incompleteness.

Nemesio