FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Stephanos Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:A following sentence:

Quote:But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.

You should not take statements out of context.

But the error seems to be "self-contained" within the sentence because it starts with the words "In itself,...". I don't think Stevus erred in this regard, based on how the sentence is constructed.

It implies that nothing is beyond God.  Then it clarifies as to the fact whether or not God would do such a thing, and most theologians believe He would not, and we can accept the theologians' conclusion with moral certitude.
I'm in agreement that God does not do this, but I have never seen a dogmatic statement that God never liberates a soul from hell, so it's not clear to me that believing He may have is heretical.  Does anyone have a reference to something that states this belief is heretical?
LaRoza Wrote:
Bonifacio Wrote:Sounds pretty heretical to me.

Yes, but it immediately shows that view to be false.

I don't know that it shows it to be false but that we can proceed with moral certitude that it does not happen since it is the consensus of theologians.  It says it is not a dogmatic teaching, so it could be next week the Church gives a dogmatic teaching that this may occur and there would be no foul.
Stephanos Wrote:But is the above quoted from NewAdvent as well? Is that just an argument or sentence construction they use alot?

I made it up. It is the style of the article basically. It isn't a catechism but more of an overview of the topic, discussing the many facets of the subject.

LaRoza Wrote:A following sentence:

Quote:But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.

You should not take statements out of context.

I provided the link which provides the context. Hence you were able to read the section for yourself.

Nevertheless, the context doesn't change the reality asserted in the statement, so it is irrelevant and didn't need to be quoted. The assertion I quoted stands alone, regardless of what theologians' opinions the Encyclopedia recommends.
StevusMagnus Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:A following sentence:

Quote:But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.

You should not take statements out of context.

I provided the link which provides the context. Hence you were able to read the section for yourself.

Nevertheless, the context doesn't change the reality asserted in the statement. It stands alone, regardless of what theologians' opinions the Encyclopedia recommends.

OK, so why were you floored?  Is it because you know this to be a heresy and see a false statement, or because you believed it to be a heresy and found the opposite in the CE?
Stephanos Wrote:But the error seems to be "self-contained" within the sentence because it starts with the words "In itself,...". I don't think Stevus erred in this regard, based on how the sentence is constructed.

Thank you, Stephanos. LaRoza seems bound and determined to take personal shots, no matter what the subject matter.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:OK, so why were you floored?  Is it because you know this to be a heresy and see a false statement, or because you believed it to be a heresy and found the opposite in the CE?

I was floored because of the astonishing nature of the assertion in the CE.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:I don't know that it shows it to be false but that we can proceed with moral certitude that it does not happen since it is the consensus of theologians.

Since when has the "consensus of theologians" provided us with moral certitude? Please quote the Council that defined this axiom. Only the Magisterium can give us moral certitude on anything, not theologians.
StevusMagnus Wrote:
Stephanos Wrote:But the error seems to be "self-contained" within the sentence because it starts with the words "In itself,...". I don't think Stevus erred in this regard, based on how the sentence is constructed.

Thank you, Stephanos. LaRoza seems bound and determined to take personal shots, no matter what the subject matter.

No, it was just a red herring. My initial response was of somewhat outrage (outrage for me, I'm not all that emotional), but I decided to read the article to see why it says that and I found the context was misrepresented. I then deleted what I had written and wrote that.

On further research of Catholic teaching, the statement is false, but the article only writes using the sources cited and following the logic that was written. It is not meant to be a catechism.
StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:OK, so why were you floored?  Is it because you know this to be a heresy and see a false statement, or because you believed it to be a heresy and found the opposite in the CE?

I was floored because of the astonishing nature of the assertion in the CE.

OK, this is like 20 questions.

Can you state what exactly was "astonishing" about it?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11