Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "'The Roman Catholic Church' (also known as 'The Faith'
This is so funny, it's astounding.
Ivanhoe has demonized me. Darfius has demonized me. They are a team!
If I were either of them, I would cry bloody murder. I would cry 'PERSECUTION!'
and whine until the cows came home.
I think it is the funniest thing ever to have happened here.
The thing is, Telerion, that Darfius explicitly thinks of ...[text shortened]... t I am
too 'arrogant' and 'self-righteous' to care.
It's funny beyond words.
Nemesio
by Ivanhoe).
This is a lie.
Nemesio: They each agree that the other is going to be
severely salvifically compromised ......
This a lie.
Nemesio: ....... the False Christian.
You don't present yourself as a Christian. Please show me the post where I accused you of being a "False Christian".
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnother assertion? What a shock!
Nemesio: They each agree that the other is going to be
severely salvifically compromised ......
This a lie.
Darfius has already made it clear that his opinion of traditional
Roman Catholics makes their religion a 'cult' and impairs their
salvation-status.
Traditional Roman Catholics (which you are, correct?) have the
position that one can only enter heaven through the mediatation
of the Church Universal. While non-Roman Catholics can enter
heaven, it is by means of the Church Universal that this occurs.
Don't you know the Doctrine of your own Church Ivanhoe? Do you
need the citation from the appropriate encyclical, or do you concede
that my analysis -- that Darfius feels that you and your ilk are salvifically
compromised and that you feel that he (as a non RC) and his ilk are
salvifically compromised?
I accept your apology in advance.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Another assertion? What a shock!
Darfius has already made it clear that his opinion of traditional
Roman Catholics makes their religion a 'cult' and impairs their
salvation-status.
Traditional Roman Catholics (which you are, correct?) have the
position that one can only enter heaven through the mediatation
of the Church Universal. While non-Rom ...[text shortened]... RC) and his ilk are
salvifically compromised?
I accept your apology in advance.
Nemesio
My Church teaches me that only God has the authority to decide whether a human being goes to heaven, hell or purgatory. You are inviting me constantly to bicker about some Roman Catholic teachings you have isolated completely from the context in which they should be understood, which is the Scripture as a whole, the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a debate a certain degree of benevolence is required from both sides to make the debate interesting and worth while. I cannot detect any of that in your attitude.
You are constantly inviting and indeed provoking me to bicker about certain isolated issues. Thanks, but no thanks.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
My Church teaches me that only God has the authority to decide whether a human being goes to heaven, hell or purgatory. You are inviting me constantly to bicker about some Roman Catholic teachings you have isolated completely from the context in which they should be understood, which is the Scripture as a whole, the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
It's interesting how you label other peoples' debates as bickering, but consider
yourself an able debator.
Ok, I'll bite. Let's discuss the salvific implications of the document Dominus Iesus.
You may find the entire document for context at the following web site:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
In particular, let us discuss the notion that the Church Universal holds the keys
to heaven.
Consider point #4:
4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.
---
Also, please consider the more specific condemnation of other faith traditions (Christian
or otherwise) in the following passage:
From point 20:
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.
I look forward to your comments.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusI did not see in Numbers 31 that such a deal was offered to any of the Midianites. Could you quote me the passage where it says if they became "righteous Gentiles" they wouldn't all have been slaughtered (might have been a tad tough for the women to be circumcised)?
Are you aware that there was such a thing as "righteous Gentiles" before Jesus came? If they adhered to the Law of Moses, and were circumcised, they could go to heaven.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey made their decision beforehand when they attacked the Jews, which unfortunately isn't mentioned in Numbers 31.
I did not see in Numbers 31 that such a deal was offered to any of the Midianites. Could you quote me the passage where it says if they became "righteous Gentiles" they wouldn't all have been slaughtered (might have been a tad tough for the women to be circumcised)?
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Ok, I'll bite."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b] My Church teaches me that only God has the authority to decide whether a human being goes to heaven, hell or purgatory. You are inviting me constantly to bicker about some Roman Catholic teachings yo ...[text shortened]... kingdom of God.
I look forward to your comments.
Nemesio[/b]
That's not what I had in mind.
If you are interested, please read the encyclicals "The Splendor of Truth" ["Veritatis Splendor"] and "Faith and Reason" ["Fides et Ratio"].
You'll find more of the context and the Light in which the document you mentioned must be read and understood. Thank you.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI've read them, Ivanhoe. I am intimately familiar with their contents.
Nemesio: "Ok, I'll bite."
That's not what I had in mind.
If you are interested, please read the encyclicals "The Splendor of Truth" ["Veritatis Splendor"] and "Faith and Reason" ["Fides et Ratio"].
You'll find more of the context and the Light in which the document you mentioned must be read and understood. Thank you.
What, in particular, did you want to discuss about them, or were you
just assigning me reading?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusAnother contrived moment of history, Darfius?
They made their decision beforehand when they attacked the Jews, which unfortunately isn't mentioned in Numbers 31.
A Moslem would scoff at your invention of truth while maintaing the
superiority of the Bible.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMy invention?
Another contrived moment of history, Darfius?
A Moslem would scoff at your invention of truth while maintaing the
superiority of the Bible.
Nemesio
Does your arrogance never cease, Nemesio? Tell us something you DON'T know. And if you say "the complete truth", then quit toting your opinion as fact, hypocrite.
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't see how it is arrogant to say 'I don't know' something.
My invention?
Does your arrogance never cease, Nemesio? Tell us something you DON'T know. And if you say "the complete truth", then quit toting your opinion as fact, hypocrite.
You are literally inventing a convenient fact to paint God in the
best possible light and claiming it is truth! That is arrogance.
I am saying 'I have no clue.'
Please, explain to me how this is arrogant? I am calling out
your contrived fact. Is that what makes me arrogant?
Ironic!
Nemesio