Limbo

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I think you are.

Really? Care to elaborate?

EDIT: Besides, I did say reasonable poster.

EDIT2: Now don't get all puffed up because of the above edit. Here's the challenge, if you've got a more reasonable interpretation of the word "Baptism" in CCC 1258 on the three occasions where I commented, then post it here.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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?

I think when I wrote imprimatur, I was thinking of has since been demonstrated to
be erroneous in its incompleteness.

Nemesio[/b]

my point was simply that if the Church can review a text, give its blessing that it is free from doctrinal error and subsequently determine that its literal meaning was erroneous, then what good is it?

The problem here is that you're misinterpreting what "free from doctrinal error" means in a nihil obstat. It doesn't mean true in the eternal, objective sense -- merely that it's not inconsistent with the established doctrine of the Church.

And infallibility means without fail. There can be no 'technicality' when dealing with it. We aren't talking about a typographical error here. We're talking about a 16th-century statement of faith which has since been demonstrated to
be erroneous in its incompleteness.

Like no1, you're reading the Trent canon out of context (Palynka - who's no RCC sympathiser - can see it) and missing the wood for the trees. It's "erroneous in its incompleteness" because you're reading it incompletely - removed from linguistic, textual and historical context.

EDIT: And it's not "since been demonstrated" - the Trent Fathers knew well about all the traditional non-sacramental ways of regeneration/remission of original sin. It's evident they did not repudiate those means nor intended to with their canon.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Really? Care to elaborate?

EDIT: Besides, I did say reasonable poster.

I am one of this forum's main bastions of what is reasonable.

I am the Champion of Debates. That's not something you achieve being unreasonable.

I don't care to elaborate, lest I become mistaken for the fool for arguing with one.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am one of this forum's main bastions of what is reasonable.

I am the Champion of Debates. That's not something you achieve being unreasonable.

I don't care to elaborate, lest I become mistaken for the fool for arguing with one.

The noble Scribbles
Hath told you LH was a fool:
If it were so, it was a grevious fault,
And greviously hath LH answer'd it
For Scribbles is a reasonable man
So are they all, all reasonable men.


I wonder how you became "the Champion of Debates" if you can't actually debate (remember? that process where we present evidence and make arguments? not to be confused for politics or soap-boxes -- where statements like the ones you made are quite admissible).