God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?

[Historian]

Before I make my closing argument, I'll address the final point you brought up.

I'm going to take this step by step, before going further and responding to things you may not have meant or intended to say and to avoid further misunderstanding.

So clearly the problem is that I have said something I did not mean to or intend to rather than your lack of understanding, right?

Nice way to load a question.

I believe you have made the following assertion:

On matters of non-moral doctrine where the Magisterium has not definitively ruled, the opinion of a consensus of theologians binds all Catholics to personally believe this consensus opinion to a moral certainty.

Please tell me if this is what you are asserting.

To answer your question: No, this is not what I am asserting, nor did I ever assert that.

I assert that Fr. Ott and Fr. Schultes are correct in their assertions as written by them.  I assert the SSPX is right in their application as I quoted.  I assert that Fr. Cekada is right in the conclusions drawn in his paper.

I also assert that the greater the degree of theological certainty, the greater the moral certitude (not moral certainty - I have corrected you on this at least 3 times now) with which we can proceed in our beliefs.  At some level of theological certainty, we have no choice but to believe that way, and this level occurs before de fide, and one of the criteria of a belief where we have to assent before de fide is the consensus of theologians.

But all of that should be abundantly clear through the last 100 posts since I asserted it over, and over, and over.

I suspect you plan to claim this was all a big misunderstanding which is absurd given the minutiae you've scrutinized in trying to prove me wrong.

So, that's that.  Now, onto my closing argument.

I have answered every argument you have presented.  Notice I'm not claiming I'm right at this point; I'm claiming I answered the arguments.  You asked for definitions, I offered them.  You asked for writings from the Popes or Councils, and I offered those.  You disputed the officialness of the defintions, and I answered to your arguments.
I asked you to argue your position, and you would not.  I asked you for two citations of people with credentials supporting your position, and you have not offered anything.  I asked you to disprove my argument on why the definition offered is the "official" one, and you would not do it informally, and you have not done it with my formal argument.

You have engaged in attacking the person instead of the argument, you have engaged in all kinds of logical fallicies of which your favorite is: "I don't believe it, so it's not true."  You change the questions after they have been answered, and you address questions in such a loaded, underhanded, slanted way that it's clear you just want to win an argument and have no interest in figuring out the objective truth of the matter.

And that's the big problem.  The objective truth of a matter can only be discovered when both parties enter into the discussion with the goal of finding that out, the chips fall where they may.  There are no loaded arguments, arguments are not left unanswered, evidence is offered when asked for or at least an argument made that the request is unreasonable.

You have done none of those things.  You have effectively said, "I don't believe it - prove it to me" and left it at that.   When proof is attempted, you effectively dismiss things out of hand without any type of counterargument or evidence to the contrary.  And, on top of it all, you get things blatantly wrong.  You fish in CE for things like Probabilism and misapply them which only shows you went fishing in CE and found something that looked like an escape pod only to find out that you were entering an escape pod for deep space in the middle of the ocean - you were using an approach for moral theology for dogmatic theology.

This is just absurd.  It's been 100 posts of you ducking the issues, avoiding arguments, and ignoring calls for evidence of your claims. 
My assertions are clear, and I leave the evidence I offered.  I'm perfectly fine with what I've posted here.  PA aside, who I may answer in a week if this is brought up again, there has not even been an attempt at refuting my arguments - you have only attempted to confound them.

I hope that you feel comfortable with the evidence you have offered.  Though, I don't know how one can feel comfortable having offered nothing.

So, that's it.  That's my closing argument.  You get yours, without a rebuttal from me, at which time this thread will be locked and the topic off the table for a week.  Have at it.

[INPEFESS]

Note to all: Be wary of utilizing Fr. Cekada's writings in proofs - they are often not theologically sound.

God bless you all!

[StevusMagnus]

Quis,

You claim that my understanding of what you have asserted is incorrect. Instead of reformulating a succint statement of what exactly it is you are aserting, you simply say you are asserting whatever x, y, and z authority said. I'm disappointed that you did not simply state clearly and succinctly what exactly you are asserting. It seems your assertions have changed back and forth throughout this debate, ending in my finally trying to narrow down what exactly you are asserting so I can then distinguish the precise issues we need to be discussing. It is unfortunate this will not happen.

As I am still not clear what you are asserting regarding the authority and role of theologians, it would be pointless to go into another lengthy response, responding to positions you may or may not hold to.

You continually challenge me to provide authorities for my "positions". My only position throughout this debate has been that the assertion I attributed to you in my last post is false. You are the one making whatever positive assertion you are making about the authority of theologians and thus the burden of proof is on you. You are making the assertion and the charge that a theological rule exists. I can hardly be asked to prove something does not exist. All I can do is point out to you that what I understand you are asserting is incorrect and not supported by your sources.

I think Pastor Aeternus did a brilliant job of this in his post, pointing out that dogma and the ordinary Magisterium provide the authority of belief, while opinions of theologians may confirm this belief. However, on unsettled matters, the "consensus" of theologians does not bind us, or else the absurd result is that Catholics were bound to believe artificial birth control was morally permissible in the 60's; a startling conclusion that you actually agreed with in order to be consistent with your premise.

In the end, you can judge my good faith and my motives all you'd like.  However, I think you are mistaking the fact that I do not have the burden of proof in this argument for bad faith in not trying to "prove" some sort of counter-assertion. I haver never intended to prove any counter assertion. My only intent was to point out that your assertion is not correct. Namely that the "consensus" of "theologians" in and of itself does not morally bind the faithful. If you agree with that statement, then there is nothing further to argue. If you do not, then you will simply have to specifically define what you are asserting, if you choose to, in the future.

I gave you the definition of probabalism which clearly supported the stance that we are not bound to "consensus" theologian opinion. All you could do was point out that it only referred to "moral questions" even though you had applied your premise to "moral questions" previously in the birth control hypothetical. This is an example of you switching your arguments mid-stream once you are confronted with damaging evidence.

I was polite about it and continued on stating that at least we established you are now not claiming your premise holds to "moral questions". But now it seems you are claiming that I somehow frantically searched through the CE looking to grasp at straws to support "my position" at all costs. I hope that this sort of speculation can be left out of our discussions in the future. I, for my part, will try to do the same for you.  For what it is worth, probabalism was the very moral rule that my professor was utilizing in bioethics class, though he did not name it as such. I had to research to find it.

I am proud to say that I never questioned your good faith or motives during this discussion. I try to always discuss the arguments posed to me instead of discussing the poster or trying to divine his motivations.

I, for one, will always look to the dogmas and doctrines of the Popes, Councils, Magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary) to get my moral and doctrinal marching orders. I will never feel bound to follow any "consensus opinion" (whatever that is) of "theologians", separate from the Church's own doctrinal and moral statements. I hope you, nor any other Catholic, would either.

God bless.

[Historian]

Thank you.  This topic is now off limits for a week.