Limbo

Originally posted by no1marauder
Will you stop wasting everybody's time with your nitpicking? Are you saying that what the Cath Ency says regarding this issue isn't Church doctrine?

Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church has defined, but also an impartial record of different vie ...[text shortened]... out prejudice, national, political or factional.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

He's not nitpicking (as you so like to call it). He's telling you exactly how it is. Although you don't want to hear it.

Let me just say that although I think that at this point YOU are the one that's "nitpicking", I do agree that it is a bit ridiculous that according to the RCC (as far as miscarried and aborted unbaptized children go), there is no direct statement that they absolutely DO NOT end up in hell, only that it is up to God's mercy to determine what happens (in other words, no one really knows.)

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is Dominus Jesus?

EDIT: Never mind, I found it. I'll wait on LH's response to comment.

The part about the incorrectly faithful (non-Catholic Christians) and the non-faithful is,
as I recall, in the fifth and especially sixth parts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is dishonest to suggest I was using "random opinions and/or judgments" of the Editors of the CE when they were quoting official Church documents and figures like St. Iraneus and St. Augustine.

Figures like Sts. Irenaeus and Augustine simply do not have the same binding authority that the Church has. So, even if the CE (with its imprimatur) adopts the position of Sts. Irenaeus and Augustine, that's not the same as propounding Church teaching. In this case, if it says "St. Irenaeus says X and St. Augustine says Y", then it clearly is not identifying it with Church teaching -- so it's disambiguous of you to claim that is the case in general.

When they are quoting official Church documents, naturally they are citing Church teaching (unless they're taking it out of context and/or twisting the meaning) -- but you need to specifically cite those parts of the CE if you're going to claim something is Catholic teaching based on the CE.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes it is "logically impossible" for Baptism to be NECESSARY for salvation (as is OFFICIAL Church doctrine repeated many times ex cathedra) but not necessary.

You're not answering to point.

Besides, your assertion is incorrect if the Church's understanding of "necessary" in "necessity of baptism" is different from logical necessity.

Originally posted by Nemesio
LH, correct me if I am wrong here.

The RCC teaches that Baptism assures salvation for those who die in a state of Grace. However,
the Church allows (as we discussed some years ago regarding [/i]Dominus Jesus[/i]) for the
possibility that God, in His inestimable goodness and graciousness, allows both schismatic/heretical
Christians (i.e., those who do ...[text shortened]... sary. Clearly, Baptism is not necessary (as Dominus Jesus clearly indicates).

Nemesio

However, the Church allows (as we discussed some years ago regarding [/i]Dominus Jesus[/i]) for the possibility that God, in His inestimable goodness and graciousness, allows both schismatic/heretical Christians (i.e., those who do not agree with the dogmas of the RCC) and non-believers to enter the kingdom of heaven through the mediation of the RCC.

First of all, you cannot lump together schismatic/heretical Christians and non-believers together on the question of baptism. The Church recognises (and has always recognised! See Trent's canons on baptism, can. IV) valid baptisms even within schismatic/formally heretical communities. Treating them equivalently is a red herring on this issue.

#1s objection, though, is legitimate. Either something (in this case Baptism) is necessary or it is not necessary. Clearly, Baptism is not necessary (as Dominus Jesus clearly indicates).

The question is -- what did the Church intend by its teaching on the "necessity of baptism"? Did "necessity" refer to logical necessity, or was it speaking of empirical bounds (i.e. as far as the Church knows, there is no means of remitting original sin but baptism) and therefore of the necessity of evangelisation? Also, what does "baptism" itself mean? Clearly the Church does recognise the baptisms of desire and blood, for instance. Is there a fourth, possibly mysterious, form of baptism reserved to God for innocent souls that never had the opportunity for baptism in the other forms?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]However, the Church allows (as we discussed some years ago regarding [/i]Dominus Jesus[/i]) for the possibility that God, in His inestimable goodness and graciousness, allows both schismatic/heretical Christians (i.e., those who do not agree with the dogmas of the RCC) and non-believers to enter the kingdom of heaven through the mediation of to God for innocent souls that never had the opportunity for baptism in the other forms?

The Secret Decoder Ring strikes again. Necessity doesn't mean necessity and there might be a secret type of Baptism nowhere indicated in Church teaching. Total BS.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're not answering to point.

Besides, your assertion is incorrect if the Church's understanding of "necessary" in "necessity of baptism" is different from logical necessity.

Of course. Are there any other words you want to perform the Fallacy of Equivocation on?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Figures like Sts. Irenaeus and Augustine simply do not have the same binding authority that the Church has. So, even if the CE (with its imprimatur) adopts the position of Sts. Irenaeus and Augustine, that's not the same as propounding Church teaching. In this case, if it says "St. Irenaeus says X and St. Augustine says Y", then it clearly is not iden e parts of the CE if you're going to claim something is Catholic teaching based on the CE.

LMAO!

This was cited already in this thread:

EDIT: "The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm



Please explain how that is NOT authoritative Church teaching. Also could you please tell us what the Council of Trent regarding the necessity of Baptism and answer my question as to which is an authoritative statement of Church doctrine: the Catechism or the Council of Trent?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Secret Decoder Ring strikes again. Necessity doesn't mean necessity and there might be a secret type of Baptism nowhere indicated in Church teaching. Total BS.

LOL! After all the SDR rubbish (don't deny it) you pull in legal discussions, you have the gall to accuse me of it?

Yes, "necessity" in a theological context can be different from logical necessity (just as "It is necessary to fasten your seatbelts" does not mean "It is logically impossible for you to keep your seatbelts unfastened" on an airplane).

And yes, the Church has never said that the normative baptism by water is exhaustive when it comes to remission of original sin. Technically speaking, "baptism" of desire and blood are not 'baptisms' (where one is referring to the Sacrament) but simply refer to the fact that original sin is washed away with these. So, yes, by saying that God can save the unbaptised, the Church is already alluding to a possible fourth form.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO!

This was cited already in this thread:

EDIT: "The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is u ...[text shortened]... ich is an authoritative statement of Church doctrine: the Catechism or the Council of Trent?

If it's a Papal Bull, then it is authoritative Church teaching, but it needn't be infallible (don't mix up the two). Ditto with Catechism vs. Ecumenical Council.

EDIT: What has any of this got to do with your faulty "it's got an imprimatur therefore it's authoritative Church teaching" argument?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If it's a Papal Bull, then it is authoritative Church teaching, but it needn't be infallible (don't mix up the two). Ditto with Catechism vs. Ecumenical Council.

EDIT: What has any of this got to do with your faulty "it's got an imprimatur therefore it's authoritative Church teaching" argument?

Since I never made that argument, nothing. And this is your usual nitpicking when you have no real argument. As you concede, an imprimatur means that there is no doctrinal errors in the document. Since the CE IN THIS CASE was specifically citing to doctrine, it couldn't get an imprimatur if it was wrong, could it?

Are you saying the pronouncements of the Council of Trent aren't infallible now?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
LOL! After all the SDR rubbish (don't deny it) you pull in legal discussions, you have the gall to accuse me of it?

Yes, "necessity" in a theological context can be different from logical necessity (just as "It is necessary to fasten your seatbelts" does not mean "It is logically impossible for you to keep your seatbelts unfastened" on an airplane) ...[text shortened]... od can save the unbaptised, the Church is already alluding to a possible fourth form.

Of course, I pull no such thing; another in a line of falsehoods that you never seem to tire of (like the one where I supposedly agree with everything the SC says).

I'll let the wording of the cites I gave speak for themselves; there is no indication the Church is using the word "necessity" in this context to mean "not necessary" as you are claiming. The teaching is clear on Baptism and allows what the law would call "constructive" Baptisms; however, there is nothing at all to indicate "necessity" in used in anything but it's ordinary context. This is a particulary ridiculous case of equivocation on your part.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I never made that argument, nothing. And this is your usual nitpicking when you have no real argument. As you concede, an imprimatur means that there is no doctrinal errors in the document. Since the CE IN THIS CASE was specifically citing to doctrine, it couldn't get an imprimatur if it was wrong, could it?

Are you saying the pronouncements of the Council of Trent aren't infallible now?

Since I never made that argument, nothing.

Eh? Remember saying this on page 3:

"Yes, the Church through its organs has said that the Cath. Enc. is free from doctrinal errors. So what's in it are authoritative statements of Church doctrine."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lying, but simply forgot.

Since the CE IN THIS CASE was specifically citing to doctrine, it couldn't get an imprimatur if it was wrong, could it?

The CE in this case cites a few Church documents, cites a lot of theologians and makes a few theological arguments of its own. As long as those theological arguments (e.g. all the ones which reference the Bible, for instance) are not inconsistent with Church teaching at the time, it can still get an imprimatur even if it was wrong about them.

Are you saying the pronouncements of the Council of Trent aren't infallible now?

All of the doctrinal ones are. As regards the practice of the faith and disciplinary matters, not necessarily.

EDIT: I've made this last point clear in the past as well.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, I pull no such thing; another in a line of falsehoods that you never seem to tire of (like the one where I supposedly agree with everything the SC says).

I'll let the wording of the cites I gave speak for themselves; there is no indication the Church is using the word "necessity" in this context to mean "not necessary" as you are ...[text shortened]... ordinary context. This is a particulary ridiculous case of equivocation on your part.

I've never said you agree with everything the SC says -- you're creating a strawman as usual. As regards the SDR thing, I'll let your constant snotnosery on legal matters speak for itself.

If you want to let the wording speak for themselves, that's fine. As long as the context (e.g. linguistic, theological, historical) is clarified -- which you don't care for (apparently everyone in history employed 20th century lay English when you're reading documents).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Since I never made that argument, nothing.

Eh? Remember saying this on page 3:

"Yes, the Church through its organs has said that the Cath. Enc. is free from doctrinal errors. So what's in it are authoritative statements of Church doctrine."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lying, but simply forgot.

[b/]Sin ones are. As regards the practice of the faith and disciplinary matters, not necessarily.[/b]

I know what I said. It remains true since the conversation was specifically about the necessity of Baptism. You've offerred nothing to indicate that the CE made any doctrinal errors when it quoted Papal Bulls, Church councils and the some of the most important theologians the Church ever had. Show something that indicates the CE was wrong. You seem to be tapdancing away rather than making any substantive statements; a tiresome game of yours.

Did or did not the Council of Trent make doctrinal prouncements regarding the necessity of Baptism?