Spirituality
07 Oct 06
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by Palynka
Ask the question 'Is it necessary to pay taxes?' and provide only the possibilities 'Yes', 'No' as an answer. Most people would say 'yes'.
The answer 'yes' would be an incorrect answer. That most people would
answer in that fashion merely means that most people would be
incorrect. A correct answer might be 'most of the time' or 'under
normative conditions.'
Necessary has a current meaning that is different from the absolute inclusion of the meaning of 'necessary' in formal logic.
If necessary can have two mutually exclusive meanings in your mind,
then it has no meaning. If blue can mean orange sometimes,
the what the hell use is the word blue?
Again, why should the RCC speak in the language of formal logic?
Because it would lend clarity to Her doctrines and negate any appearance
of equivocation that would weaken any claim to Divine Truth that She
makes.
It's not like I'm suggesting that the Catechism ought to comprise
truth tables, here, or list its teachings in syllogistic format. Don't you
think it's reasonable to expect that statements on faith, the afterlife,
and how humans ought to relate to each other in Divine harmony would
utilize non-colloquial, normative definitions of words?
If yes, do you consider this kind of language an absolute essential to all communication?
If I'm at a football game talking about how my wife says it's necessary
to pick up my laundry, then, of course no. When it comes to instruction
on critical matters, like a relationship with God, then, absolutely. If
something is absolutely essential, then why wouldn't the most precise,
consistent, and clear language be a number one priority?
Nemesio
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]How is the answer 'under normative conditions' different from explicitely stating exceptions?
[b]The answer 'yes' would be an incorrect answer. That most people would
answer in that fashion merely means that most people would be
incorrect. A correct answer might be 'most of the time' or 'under
normative conditions.
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhat do you mean mutually exclusive? Many words have different meanings, and this one certainly isn't mutually exclusive. If there are no exceptions, both are equivalent.
Originally posted by Palynka
If necessary can have two mutually exclusive meanings in your mind,
then it has no meaning. If blue can mean orange sometimes,
the what the hell use is the word blue?
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThat's exactly what you are doing when you claim that the Church can't say 'B is a necessity, except in the following cases'.
Originally posted by Palynka
It's not like I'm suggesting that the Catechism ought to comprise
truth tables, here, or list its teachings in syllogistic format. Don't you
think it's reasonable to expect that statements on faith, the afterlife,
and how humans ought to relate to each other in Divine harmony would
utilize non-colloquial, normative definitions of words?
I honestly don't see what's unclear about that sentence. Again, the vast majority of people (who aren't nitpicking) would have no trouble in understanding its meaning, therefore communication is achieved without misinterpretation.
Edit - Your last point also falls under this explanation. I think that the way they state it is crystal clear. It's not like the RCC is hiding anything, especially when you consider that they bother to say explicitly that they are ignorant on the possibility of salvation.
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBasically, this (and the following discussion) seems to say that Baptism is actually necessary for salvation for only a rather small subset of the human population. Exceptions, thus far, seem to be:
I don't care what LH said on March 7. I'm not defending his position, nor discussing it, I'm discussing the RCC's position.
The current official RCC position is described in this chapter:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
From which I quote:
[b]VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Bap to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. [/b]
(1) “those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism” (Baptism of blood);
(2) “catechumens who die before their Baptism, [provided] their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity” (Baptism of desire);
(3) “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” (assumed desire);
(4) “children [to what age?] who have died without Baptism.”
This seems to leave adults who have been instructed in, and fully understand the Gospel of Christ, who have the opportunity but who willfully desire not to be Baptized. Am I missing someone?
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaSo the Church is admitting, then, that Baptism isn't a necessity, only
LMAO! 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.
[b]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 bapt ...[text shortened]... all not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.[/b]
that it might be a necessity and that people ought not to take
risks and delay a Baptism when possible.
That is, the Church doesn't know that Baptism is a necessity,
just that it has a strong sense that it probably is.
Nemesio
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaBecause the answer isn't 'yes.'
How is the answer 'under normative conditions' different from explicitely stating exceptions?[/b]
The answer to the question of taxes is 'It is only a necessity for the
people who do/don't meet the following criteria.' This is different than
saying it is a necessity for people, but for a (clearly defined) subset
of people.
The Council of Trent does not offer these exceptions, which is why
it's presentation is flawed. It merely states necessity, which is an
incomplete (and therefore erroneous) picture.
Nemesio
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio'
Because the answer isn't '[b]yes.'
The answer to the question of taxes is 'It is only a necessity for the
people who do/don't meet the following criteria.' This is different than
saying it is a necessity for people, but for a (clearly defined) subset
of people.
The Council of Trent does not offer these exceptions, which is why
it's pres ...[text shortened]... states necessity, which is an
incomplete (and therefore erroneous) picture.
Nemesio[/b]
On your knees, on your knees ... on your knees, I tell y' ......
Signed, Nemesis
12 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioLike I've quoted before to no1marauderogatory, the council states that "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
Because the answer isn't '[b]yes.'
The answer to the question of taxes is 'It is only a necessity for the
people who do/don't meet the following criteria.' This is different than
saying it is a necessity for people, but for a (clearly defined) subset
of people.
The Council of Trent does not offer these exceptions, which is why
it's pres ...[text shortened]... states necessity, which is an
incomplete (and therefore erroneous) picture.
Nemesio[/b]
To me, the key idea is that baptism isn't optional. The current interpretation by the Church shows that those that the Church sees as possible exceptions are those that never had the option of being Baptized and therefore they admit for the possibility of salvation.
12 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYour stupidity is amazing. The Church doesn't state there are any exceptions that it knows of and says that EXPLICITLY. You take that statement to mean that the Church is saying there ARE exceptions!
Like I've quoted before to no1marauderogatory, the council states that "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
To me, the key idea is that baptism isn't optional. The current interpretation by the Church shows that those that the Church sees as possible exceptions are those that never had the option of being Baptized and therefore they admit for the possibility of salvation.
The mind reels.
EDIT: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
12 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderKey word being "assures".
EDIT: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
EDIT: That said, there's still the issue of baptisms of blood and desire. What the CCC is talking about here is sacramental Baptism.
12 Oct 06
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI think Palynka's already made sufficiently good points about the whole hoo-haa about "necessity" not meaning formal/logical necessity, so I won't re-tread it here. Just a few other points to pick up:
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]
What meaning does an imprimatur have if it can be wrong? None.
I've pulled no1 up for this and now I'll have to do this to you. What does "wrong" mean in the sentence above? Do you mean factually incorrect, doctrinally incorrect (this is the only one that an imprimatur is supposed to cover -- that too at the time of publishing), morally incorrect, something else?
(After all the ribbing you give the RCC for not using formally precise language, you go on to do the same thing! Can't you see now why it's simply not practical in every single instance? In this case, I'd like a clarification though.)
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 erred in this way, as its pronouncement on necessity was flawed.
That's what this was all about? Just to knock off the doctrine of infallibility on a technicality?
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, it isn't. 1257 is followed, unsuprisingly, by 1258 and 1259, which use the term Baptism as well to describe Baptisms by desire and blood.
Key word being "assures".
EDIT: That said, there's still the issue of baptisms of blood and desire. What the CCC is talking about here is sacramental Baptism.
12 Oct 06
Of course, on page 5 you said this, LH:
the fact remains that at no point does he say that it is a logical impossibility for unbaptised children to be saved
But when it was shown that it is a "logical impossibility" to say Baptism is a necessity for salvation yet there is a possibility for salvation without it, you simply changed the rules and said the RCC wasn't talking in the "logical" sense!
Goalposts moved again!
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderCould you be more disingenous?
No, it isn't. 1257 is followed, unsuprisingly, by 1258 and 1259, which use the term Baptism as well to describe Baptisms by desire and blood.
1257 deals with sacramental baptism (i.e. Baptism). In 1258, the distinction is drawn between Baptism and non-sacramental "baptisms":
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism [LH: i.e. sacramental baptism] are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism [LH: note how that's desire for sacramental baptism], brings about the fruits of Baptism [LH: sacramental baptism again] without being a sacrament.
Similarly with 1259.