Spirituality
07 Oct 06
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that I know more about law than you do, though that is hardly a high bar to jump.
I've never said you agree with everything the SC says -- you're creating a strawman as usual. As regards the SDR thing, I'll let your constant snotnosery on legal matters speak for itself.
If you want to let the wording speak for themselves, that's fine. As long as the context (e.g. linguistic, theological, historical) is clarified -- which ...[text shortened]... ntly everyone in history employed 20th century lay English when you're reading documents).
Again you are merely avoiding the issues.
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Let's see what the Council of Trent stated in its Fifth Session:
4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it. For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16] For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html
Is this an infallible doctrinal statement?
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNow who's tapdancing? You went on and on about Archbishops and official bodies and imprimaturs for pages -- now you're backtracking and saying "since we were only talking about Baptism, what I said holds".
I know what I said. It remains true since the conversation was specifically about the necessity of Baptism.
Even if we're only talking about Baptism, your argument doesn't hold.
You've offerred nothing to indicate that the CE made any doctrinal errors when it quoted Papal Bulls, Church council and the some of the most important theologians the Church ever had.
I'm not claiming the CE made a doctrinal error -- that's another strawman. I'm saying that the views of the CE are not indentical with authoritative Church teaching (which is what you argued for several pages until you came up with "since we're talking Baptism" etc.) although they will not be inconsistent with it.
Show something that indicates the CE was wrong. You seem to be tapdancing away rather than making any substantive statements; a tiresome game of yours.
And you're playing your tiresome game of putting up strawmen.
Did or did not the Council of Trent make doctrinal prouncements regarding the necessity of Baptism?
It did. But given that the Trent Fathers certainly knew about the baptisms of desire and blood (and said nothing to reject them), it's quite evident they did not intend logical necessity of Baptism by water.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou sure know how to put up those strawmen! Please read what I wrote again -- it's not your claims to knowledge of the law that I'm referring to, but your Secret Decoder Ring defence of any understanding of the law that differs from yours.
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that I know more about law than you do, though that is hardly a high bar to jump.
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe never ending attempts at nitpicking continue. The discussion was about Baptism, someone questioned the CE as a source, I pointed out that the CE was an "authoritative" source because it has an imprimatur. And even more importantly if you bother to read its home page, it is meant to be "authoritative" as regards Catholic teaching.
Now who's tapdancing? You went on and on about Archbishops and official bodies and imprimaturs for pages -- now you're backtracking and saying "since we were only talking about Baptism, what I said holds".
Even if we're only talking about Baptism, your argument doesn't hold.
[b/]You've offerred nothing to indicate that the CE made any doctrinal e m), it's quite evident they did not intend logical necessity of Baptism by water.
Your hairsplitting distinctions are of no importance here; the CE quite clearly is correct as regards the necessity of Baptism and that is all I claimed.
EDIT: From the CE's Preface: The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour lies are truly pathetic.
You sure know how to put up those strawmen! Please read what I wrote again -- it's not your claims to knowledge of the law that I'm referring to, but your Secret Decoder Ring defence of any understanding of the law that differs from yours.
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: It did. But given that the Trent Fathers certainly knew about the baptisms of desire and blood (and said nothing to reject them), it's quite evident they did not intend logical necessity of Baptism by water.
Now who's tapdancing? You went on and on about Archbishops and official bodies and imprimaturs for pages -- now you're backtracking and saying "since we were only talking about Baptism, what I said holds".
Even if we're only talking about Baptism, your argument doesn't hold.
[b/]You've offerred nothing to indicate that the CE made any doctrinal e m), it's quite evident they did not intend logical necessity of Baptism by water.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!
Yes, they knew about them. They are excluded from infants. You are being deliberately dishonest to suggest otherwise.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, it's the teaching that is infallibly pronounced, not the particular document/statement. What are the teachings in what you've cited:
Let's see what the Council of Trent stated in its Fifth Session:
4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expi ...[text shortened]... lcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html
Is this an infallible doctrinal statement?
(1) Infants are to be baptised
(2) Infants do derive original sin from Adam (Note: this is what your first bold extract refers to)
(3) Baptism remits original sin
(4) Original sin must be remitted for eternal life
Your second bold extract ostensibly refers to the Sacrament of Baptism, but that's not the only reference (otherwise the Church couldn't approve of "baptisms" of blood and desire).
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for even more nitpicking and stating of the obvious (no crap that it's the teaching and not the paper it's written on that's considered "infallible"😉.
Actually, it's the teaching that is infallibly pronounced, not the particular document/statement. What are the teachings in what you've cited:
(1) Infants are to be baptised
(2) Infants do derive original sin from Adam (Note: this is what your first bold extract refers to)
(3) Baptism remits original sin
(4) Original sin must be remitted ...[text shortened]... only reference (otherwise the Church couldn't approve of "baptisms" of blood and desire).
Again, Baptisms of blood and desire are inpossible for infants according to Catholic doctrine, aren't they?
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're equivocating on "authoritative". The CE editors themselves would not claim that they are referring to equivalence with the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority of the Church) in their use of the word "authoritative". They simply mean extensive/encyclopedic. You were wrong then to claim that the imprimatur gave it some kind of "authority" (in the sense the Catechism has) and you're wrong now to restate it.
The never ending attempts at nitpicking continue. The discussion was about Baptism, someone questioned the CE as a source, I pointed out that the CE was an "authoritative" source because it has an imprimatur. And even more importantly if you bother to read its home page, it is meant to be "authoritative" as regards Catholic teaching.
Your hairsp ...[text shortened]... tive information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.[/b]
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course they are -- but if we're to follow your sentence-by-sentence nitpicking then clearly your "born of water and Spirit" statement would exclude those?
Again, Baptisms of blood and desire are inpossible for infants according to Catholic doctrine, aren't they?
Since it doesn't (and the Church Fathers didn't intend it to), it's quite clear that they didn't close the door on other ways (even if there was none they knew of -- and which the Catechism makes clear) for unbaptised infants to be saved.
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBitch at them, assclown. I'm not "equivocating"; I was repeating what the CE says in its preface.
You're equivocating on "authoritative". The CE editors themselves would not claim that they are referring to equivalence with the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority of the Church) in their use of the word "authoritative". They simply mean extensive/encyclopedic. You were wrong then to claim that the imprimatur gave it some kind of "authority" (in the sense the Catechism has) and you're wrong now to restate it.
EDIT: And besides for all your BS, it remains true that the statement of doctrine that was being discussed which is given in the CE IS correct.
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder(As expected, out come the profanities)
Bitch at them, assclown. I'm not "equivocating"; I was repeating what the CE says in its preface.
You were repeating what the CE said as part of your argument that draws an equivalence between the authority of the CE and that of the CCC. That's where you equivocate. Please don't waste your time chasing more strawmen.
EDIT: And besides for all your BS, it remains true that the doctrine that was being discussed which is given in the CE IS correct.
What do you mean by "correct"? You're equivocating on this as well (which is why you brought in completely spurious arguments about imprimaturs).
EDIT: Essentially, it is "correct" in that it is not inconsistent with Church teaching. It is not "correct" in that it is a pure paraphrase of Church teaching (e.g. that whole bit about necessity of means and precept is not part of any Church statement or doctrine).
10 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerObviously you can't follow a discussion. If I was like you, I would have spent 10 pages pointing out that the Catechism itself isn't infallible either. Instead, unlike you. I dealt with the point raised. The CE statement is correct. But you may rave on for another 20 pages if you wish with your hairsplitting, nitpicking attempts at arguing about a single word - in this case "authoritative" - rather than discussing the subject at hand. It is your usual MO.
(As expected, out come the profanities)
You were repeating what the CE said as part of your argument that draws an equivalence between the authority of the CE and that of the CCC. That's where you equivocate. Please don't waste your time chasing more strawmen.
[b/]EDIT: And besides for all your BS, it remains true that the doctrine that was being about necessity of means and precept is not part of any Church statement or doctrine).
EDIT: And you and Ivanhoe love the word "strawman" though you, like him, constantly use it incorrectly.
And again, the CE in this case DIRECTLY stated the Doctrine. If it is "free from Doctrinal errors" what is left of your nitpickery?