Originally posted by lucifershammer
As Pal points out, why should theological statements, in their current form, be expected to conform to the standards of formal logic? We certainly don't expect it in common language.
Then the pronouncements have no meaning. If one says that
X is a necessity, and then provides a series of situations in which it
is not a necessity, then what meaning does the first statement have?
None. And that is the problem. If you cannot see this as a problem,
if you do not see how people would be disinclined to take anything
seriously -- 'authoritative' and, especially, 'infallible -- then what is
there to talk about? You are comfortable participating in a world where
the Divine Authority is represented by an Institution willing to make
mutually exclusive claims -- X is a necessity, X is not a necessity.
Would you tolerate this from your boss? Your friends? From God?
I would expect not; indeed, whenever #1 gives the appearance of
equivocation, you jump on him like white on rice (and I don't blame
you for it). You would, however, accept it from your Church.
Why?
As I've pointed out repeatedly to no1, the Trent Fathers were well aware of the tradition of "baptisms" of desire and blood and it's quite clear they did not intend to repudiate those...
Of course, and I agree. But that means that the Council of Trent's
presentation on Baptism was flawed. By using the term 'necessity'
they erred. I have no problem accepting this, I have no problem
with the idea that fetuses' or unBaptized babies' going to heaven.
But it necessarily means that the Council of Trent's statement on
the 'necessity' of Baptism was erroneous if for no other reason than
because it was incomplete.
Hey! Don't accuse me of something without providing the evidence.
The moving target is evinced in this thread. To say that 'X' is authoritative
but could be wrong means that no argument can be formed against it
because you can always say, 'Oops, well, the Church didn't really mean
what it said.' To say that definitions of words (like necessity) don't
really mean what they are defined to mean is similarly frustrating.
And I've said in the past - I simply don't know. You expect me to be a walking encyclopedia of Church documents or something?
No, I don't. But, it means that you can always open the escape hatch
I mentioned above (well, it doesn't really, really mean......). This is
why #1 and I get so frustrated. Because there isn't a definitive list,
you can always run behind the 'not infallible' claim. What meaning
does an imprimatur have if it can be wrong? None.
Why is that frustrating? If it's a question of what the Catholic Church teaches then clearly the CCC is the place to go to. That's normally the way I use the Catechism -- to clarify what the Church teaches about a topic.
Then you agree that the term necessity is wrong, then?
Just because you and no1 can't seem distinguish between authoritative and infallible does not mean a reasonable person can't.
If we are going to call the Council of Trent's pronouncement infallible,
and if the Council of Trent says that X is a necessity, and a later
infallible document says that there are exceptions to X, then no
reasonable person can be expected to respect the term 'infallible.'
You seem to be throwing out some general frustration that have little to do with the topic at hand or the way this discussion has progressed.
This is true. Unlike Ivanhoe, I have a tremendous amount of respect
for your ability to think, the patience you display with people trying to
learn, and your willingness to post. However, the Church has
equivocated on this issue (the necessity of Baptism). Unlike you,
I have no objection (indeed, I applaud it) to the Church's saying 'We
erred earlier' or 'We were unclear' or 'We thought we were right, but
upon further meditation and prayer and talking with God, we have
decided the opposite.'
In order to appease me, all the Church (or you) would have to do is
simply say: The Council of Trent's presentation is incomplete. It
neglected to take into account specific situations where Baptism is,
in fact, not necessary. It erred in this way, as its pronouncement on
necessity was flawed.
The Church has, in essence, done this, with the material in the
Catechism and Dominus Jesus and countless other modern
documents. That you (might?) deny that it has is maddening.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe mistake is looking at isolated statements removed from context. There's no incoherence in stating that X is a necessity except in the cases explicitly described.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then the pronouncements have no meaning. If one says that
X is a necessity, and then provides a series of situations in which it
is not a necessity, then what meaning does the first statement have?
Saying that 'every entity that has a revenue must pay taxes' is not necessarily a falsehood, only a simplification, since it is sufficient that there are exceptions that are explicitly described elsewhere. I don't know why you demand the RCC to re-claim all those exceptions everytime they pronounce the necessity of baptism for all that don't fall under those exceptions.
Originally posted by PalynkaMaybe you missed this:
The mistake is looking at isolated statements removed from context. There's no incoherence in stating that X is a necessity except in the cases explicitly described.
Saying that 'every entity that has a revenue must pay taxes' is not necessarily a falsehood, only a simplification, since it is sufficient that there are exceptions that are explicitly descri ...[text shortened]... ime they pronounce the necessity of baptism for all that don't fall under those exceptions.
Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying Grace which all men "inherit" into their soul due to the sin of Adam. The Church teaches that the only way to "remit" original sin and thus receive sanctifying grace is through Baptism. Thus, there are no "exceptions" as Palynka keeps saying UNLESS the doctrine of original sin is modified (or perhaps one could say that the soul isn't formed at conception but I thought that was Church doctrine as well).
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Unlike Ivanhoe, I have a tremendous amount of respect
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]As Pal points out, why should theological statements, in their current form, be expected to conform to the standards of formal logic? We certainly don't expect it in common language.
Then the pronouncements have no meaning. If one says that
X is a necessity, and then provides a series of situatio (might?) deny that it has is maddening.
Nemesio[/b]
for your ability to think, the patience you display with people trying to
learn, and your willingness to post."
I know you don't mean this in the way you wrote it down, but please stop handing out these for the discussion at hand irrelevant jabs at me. If you want to give somebody a compliment please do it without dragging me through the mud.
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why do you give so much power to these "self-righteous control freaks " ? You claim you don't follow orders, but you permit them to control you !
It's self-righteous control freaks like you who keep me here. I don't expect anything of intellectual value from a fool like you, but I don't take orders either.
Originally posted by no1marauderDo I really need to quote the Vatican again to prove you're affirming falsehoods?
Maybe you missed this:
Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying Grace which all men "inherit" into their soul due to the sin of Adam. The Church teaches that the only way to "remit" original sin and thus receive sanctifying grace is through Baptism. Thus, there are no "exceptions" as Palynka keeps saying UNLESS the doctrine of original s ...[text shortened]... that the soul isn't formed at conception but I thought that was Church doctrine as well).
Here is the teaching on original sin:
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
Originally posted by ivanhoeI see no reason to show you a modicum of respect when you have
I know you don't mean this in the way you wrote it down, but please stop handing out these for the discussion at hand irrelevant jabs at me. If you want to give somebody a compliment please do it without dragging me through the mud.
more than occasionally made it your sad little personal mission to troll
me in these forums.
When you show me that modicum, you'll find that it is returned in kind.
Nemesio
Edit: Incidently, it wasn't so much a 'jab' as a statement of my belief;
I do not have respect for your ability to think, your patience, or your
willingness to post (well-thought out original material). Surely, you
don't want to supress the beliefs of others, right Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by PalynkaThen it isn't a necessity. And, the Council of Trent, in its so-called
There's no incoherence in stating that X is a necessity except in the cases explicitly described.
infallible pronouncements, failed to list exceptions.
It is, at best incomplete, and thus flawed. At worst, it is wrong.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAsk the question 'Is it necessary to pay taxes?' and provide only the possibilities 'Yes', 'No' as an answer. Most people would say 'yes'.
Then it isn't a necessity. And, the Council of Trent, in its so-called
infallible pronouncements, failed to list exceptions.
It is, at best incomplete, and thus flawed. At worst, it is wrong.
Nemesio
Necessary has a current meaning that is different from the absolute inclusion of the meaning of 'necessary' in formal logic.
Again, why should the RCC speak in the language of formal logic? If yes, do you consider this kind of language an absolute essential to all communication?
Originally posted by NemesioYour jabs at me are off topic and irrelevant to the discussion.
I see no reason to show you a modicum of respect when you have
more than occasionally made it your sad little personal mission to troll
me in these forums.
When you show me that modicum, you'll find that it is returned in kind.
Nemesio
Edit: Incidently, it wasn't so much a 'jab' as a statement of my belief;
I do not have respect for your ability ...[text shortened]... ginal material). Surely, you
don't want to supress the beliefs of others, right Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by no1marauderLMAO! Why won't my prior quote do? I disagree, it is the perfect quote from the RCC's Catechism. I'll requote it as you seem to have forgotten their content. Again.
Please cite to a specific instance where the RCC explicitly states there is an exception to Baptism. Your prior quote won't do.
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
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.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.