holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
didishroom Wrote:The Church has stated that only those that are sacramentally baptized are members in the Church, so why can one who isn't be baptized be saved, for he is thus outside the Church?
Yes, [d]formal[/d] members. But the Church has talked about Her "soul", those who are Her spiritual Members (material Catholics) some of whom were never sacramentally baptized (like all the holy souls who followed the Holy Ghost by the Mosaic Law and are now in Heaven face to face with Him).  Also there is this is which is (or ought to be anyway) held and taught by all bishops of the Catholic Church: 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
That sure is universal to me, given that it's the Universal (Catholic) Catechism of the Church right now.
Quote:So do you just ignore what I say intentionally or can you not read?
Prove to me that BOD is salvific in place of BOW is a universal and consistent of the Ordinary Magisterium!
See above.
Quote:Yes you did. You even quoted what I wrote and said that it was "heresy." Don't deny it, you said it.
Yes, IT is heresy. Saying something a person wrote is heresy is not the same thing as calling that person a heretic. Nowhere have I stated "you are a heretic". You seriously have a problem facing up to your mistakes and errors. May I suggest studying up on the virtue of humility.
Quote:How can one be asked to believe something that has no defintion? If there is no definition than how can one determine if you are in error or not?
Because that's how the Ordinary Universal Magisterium works, it doesn't employ the use of definitions but teaches in a rudimentary way. Do you understand your problem now? If as you say we only have to believe dogmatic definitions and only the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium employs their use, then you are faced with the logical conclusion of not having to believe the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which does not at all employ such definitions. You have a flaw in your reasoning, my brother.
Quote:BOD is not a defined doctrine but now its de fide. Nothing that you write makes any sense or has any consitency.
You just don't understand fine distinctions. Do you not understand that there is a difference between de fide and de fide definita? Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide
Quote:
Quote:I have no position on you, but it seems you claim that the Church at Trent solemnly defined that BoD/B do not exist but only Baptism by water and that is not true.
AGAIN: read what people actually write! I've repeatedly stated that Trent has made no defintions of BOD either in affirmation or condemnation!
Yes, but then you claim that Catholics cannot believe in it anyway because of your erronrous interpretation of an Tridentine Canon. You need to make up your mind; either it is a defined dogma that water Baptism alone is necessary for salvation and therefore BOD/B cannot be believed, or, it is not defined so and hence Catholic can believe that BoD/B exist and are salvific along with the Sacrament of Baptism. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways and say that Trent both condemned them and didn't condemn them.
I have never said that Trent dogmatically defined BoD but I do believe that Trent at least taught it as a non-dogmatic, but nonetheless infallible, ordinary doctrine.
Quote:
Quote:So I believe you are in error, if not heresy.
But I thought you never called me a heretic?
I didn't and still don't. But I still say that what you have said is HERESY and in contradiction of the Church's Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
Quote:You are certainly entitled to your own opinions.
Oh but you said I wasn't because Trent's canons on baptism supposedly settle this argument. You are trying to have it both ways. No man be entitled to an erroneous opinion. So if you think I'm erroneous on Fr. Feeney being in doctrinal error then you should not be saying that I'm entitled my erroneous opinion.
Reply
didishroom Wrote:Vincentius,

Yes you have stated before that this passage does not concern Catholics, but you did not demonstrate how or why. I still don't understand how one can come up with such an argument. Trent says "if ANYONE says", not just 16th century Protestant revolutionaries. Trent says"If anyone says, baptism is optional, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, let him be anathema." I know you are not advocating anyone to purposefully delay their baptism. This what you seem to think Trent is condemning. But is makes no distinctions or qualifiers. It states that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Didi, what Vincentius is saying is that the Canon applies to the specific context of Trent's time and situation. That it was condemning the Protestants, the spiritual fathers of the born-agains, who were saying that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation but that faith alone in Christ without Baptism, without Charity, Grace and good works can merit salvation. Trent was not condemning past, present or future Catholics who believed that men can receive the effects and graces of any one of the Sacraments by effectual desire and Love of God (which one Canon even states itself). If they were doing such, then surely they would have condemned and specifically mentioned the Angelic Doctor's Summa and/or his Catechetical Instructions but no they didn't. And they even laid the Summa on the Altar during the Council's Sessions.
Quote:I have to keep reiterating my points, because you and others simply ignore them and walk around them.
As do you.
Quote:I'm sorry, but that seems highly suspicious and suggests you don't even have real answers to my points.
Yes, we do and we've given them but you refuse to believe that they are real counter arguments to your 'Aqua Baptisma Sola' belief.
Quote:I did not ridicule any of the popes, saints or doctors. You said that. Don't put words in my mouth. What I find ridiculous is the attempts to prove that such a theory is de fide based on your own emotional, sentimental and unrealistic insecurities.
You are so deluded to think that Vincentius is the one being emotional. And both of you are wrong to say the other has insecurities. This is not how Catholics ought to act toward each others.
Quote:If these sources are inconsistent then they are irrelevant to this discussion for either side.
If inconsistent but relevant sources had no place in intellectual discessions, then science would not be what it is today.
Quote:If you would recongize this then our argument could get down to the bare bones of the matter.
You seem to claim that there are no "bares bones" because as you said, "I've repeatedly stated that Trent has made no defintions of BOD either in affirmation or condemnation!"
Quote:Instead you just keep blabbering on and on that a couple saints agree with you, which in your world automatically makes you right, all the while ignoring those that disagree with you! What a completely illogical and irrational way of thinking!
Do you really believe that we think that just because SEVERAL saints said what we are saying that we are right. I think you have to have pride if you [i]really[/b] believe that.
Quote:If there is an impasse in this argument, it is because of you not me. And that's not an attack on you or your character, but simple observation based on your confounding methods of debate.
Vincentius' debating seems better than your ability to make distinctions in this discussion. I think lack of proper reasoning is the problem here. You refuse to accept the truth and knowledge that is given to you. Instead you opt to reject the truth (apparently with pride) clinging rather to your own personal belief.
Reply
Godfirst,

I don't understand why you think you have the right to lecture people on Christian charity when you accuse them of being deluded,holding heresy and being prideful simply for disagreeing with someone. You have provided nothing useful to this discussion except to come in as some kind little cheerleader on the side: "Didishroom bad! Vincentius Good! Didishroom not liky truth! Vincentius good!" Your "arguments" consist of you saying the equivalent, "No you're the one is wrong. No you're the one who isn't listening. See?"

I don't understand how you can accuse me of pridefully clinging to a personal opnion when I've stated, heaven knows how many times, that I do not equal the theology and shared positions of St. Benedict Center to be equal with the Magisterium. Neither you nor Vincentius or any one else has been able to effectively counter any of my arguments. You just deny what I say without proving how. An example:

YouGuys:"The Ordinary Magisterium has consitently, universally and thus infallibly taught that a BOD can be salvifiic in place of BOW."
Me:"Show me where."
YouGuys:"Sts. Augustine, Ambrose, Alphonsus and Charles Boremeo all taught it."
Me:"Actually Sts. Augustine and Ambrose held conflicting views on it, and others like St. Gregory Nazianzen actually denied it. And one or two doctors don't equal the whole Magisterium."
YouGuys:"You're just prideful and don't want to hear the Truth!"

???

I'm sick of these sophomoric debates with the circular logic and inane reasoning and emotional outbursts. I'm far from perfect but I have consitently maintained that I fully accept the possibility that I may be wrong. I have also stated that my purpose in these debates was from a defensive and reactionary stand. I was here mainly to defend Fr. Feeney and his Order from slanderous accusations. Never have I asked that anyone accept this theology, while I on the other hand have been accused of heresy for holding said theology. So where in this am I being the prideful jerk who is only concerned with his private opinion?

p.s. There are no dual memberships in the Church. The Church is visible. Pius XII said that the only those who could be counted as real members in the Church were those who were baptized in the waters of baptism. If you wish to discuss this point I would be more than happy to.
Reply
didishroom Wrote:I don't understand how you can accuse me of pridefully clinging to a personal opnion when I've stated, heaven knows how many times, that I do not equal the theology and shared positions of St. Benedict Center to be equal with the Magisterium. Neither you nor Vincentius or any one else has been able to effectively counter any of my arguments.
And yet you have implied it in this thread by saying that Extraordinary Magisterium, per the quoted Canons of Trent, undeniably backs up your and their position.
Quote:You just deny what I say without proving how. An example:

YouGuys:"The Ordinary Magisterium has consitently, universally and thus infallibly taught that a BOD can be salvifiic in place of BOW."
Me:"Show me where."
YouGuys:"Sts. Augustine, Ambrose, Alphonsus and Charles Boremeo all taught it."
Me:"Actually Sts. Augustine and Ambrose held conflicting views on it, and others like St. Gregory Nazianzen actually denied it. And one or two doctors don't equal the whole Magisterium."
YouGuys:"You're just prideful and don't want to hear the Truth!"
That is not the Ordinary Universal Magisterium as I've been taught. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium are all the doctrinal teachings taught by all the Bishops that are in union with the Pope. The CCC is one such ordinary and universal Catechism which is taught by all the Bishops or ought to be per the Holy See's decree. But you reject and ignore this.
Quote:I'm far from perfect but I have consitently maintained that I fully accept the possibility that I may be wrong.
There's no maybe, you are wrong, period. Trent did not define that Baptism by water is the only baptism nor did it define that the reception of the Sacrament alone is the only way that God can bring one of His creatures to see Him face to face.
Quote:Never have I asked that anyone accept this theology
No, but you seem to imply it by claiming that it is a Tridentine Dogma.
Quote:So where in this am I being the prideful jerk who is only concerned with his private opinion?
You are not a jerk. Also as you seem sincere in believing you hold the truth I don't believe you are prideful either.
Quote:p.s. There are no dual memberships in the Church.
No one ever said there is.
Quote:The Church is visible.
The Church not only visible though. Is the Church Triumphant, the Saints in Heaven, visible?
Quote:Pius XII said that the only those who could be counted as real members in the Church were those who were baptized in the waters of baptism. If you wish to discuss this point I would be more than happy to.
Yes, but not ALL validly baptized are real formal members of the Church. Many Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are validly baptized but they are not in the formal Catholic Church, they are not formal Christians. They are material Christians though by the permanent Sacramental Character of Baptism which is on their souls. This is why we do not rebaptize such persons when they enter the formal Christian Church which is the Catholic Church alone.
Alos some material members of the Church can be real members of the Church such as infants and even adults who have yet to knowingly, willingly and intentinonally deny an article of the Catholic Faith, that is, commit a mortal sin against the Theological Virtue of Faith which they may possess since their non-Catholic but nonetheless valid infant baptism.
Reply
[font=Verdana][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]
(04-23-2009, 11:23 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
didishroom Wrote:YouGuys:"The Ordinary Magisterium has consitently, universally and thus infallibly taught that a BOD can be salvifiic in place of BOW."
Me:"Show me where."
YouGuys:"Sts. Augustine, Ambrose, Alphonsus and Charles Boremeo all taught it."
Me:"Actually Sts. Augustine and Ambrose held conflicting views on it, and others like St. Gregory Nazianzen actually denied it. And one or two doctors don't equal the whole Magisterium."
YouGuys:"You're just prideful and don't want to hear the Truth!"
That is the Ordinary Universal Magisterium as I've been taught. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium are all the teachings taught by the Pope in union with the Bishops. The CCC is one such ordinary and universal Catechism which is taught by all the Bishops or ought to be per the Holy See's decree. But you reject and ignore this fact.

???

I really don't mean to interrupt, and I really don't want to take sides, but I just wanted to comment on the differences between the Extraordinary Magisterium, Ordinary Magisterium, and Ordinary Universal Magisterium. The Extraordinary Magisterium consists of the teachings of the Pope alone or the teachings of the Pope in union with the bishops. The Ordinary Magisterium consists largely of the "beliefs" of the Church as taught by the clergy but devoid of solemn definition. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the teachings of the bishops alone and devoid of solemn definition.

Quote: Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world' (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.
Reply
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God [is] life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God
Acts Of Apostles 15:11 .....by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved........
Titus 3:7 That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am....
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
2 Corinthians 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee....
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

These verses all clearly show that it is by Sanctifying Grace that we are saved and not by works alone so that no man can boast of himself. Catholic theology clear says that Sanctifying Grace is Supernatural Life. So what other than Supernatural Life is the Life of Heaven? It is by the free Grace of God that any man is saved and not by mere ritual. So let us put this to rest.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)