Limbo

Originally posted by Palynka
You're diverting the issue. Again.

The strawman is in mischaracterizing the RCC's position on baptism and unbaptized children (by quoting out of context and deliberately forgetting what the RCC says explicitly about the subject) and then attacking that mischaracterized position as incoherent.

PS: How am I deflecting the thread away from its real topic? ...[text shortened]... ness, I'm not a Catholic and I obviously don't agree with him on many issues. Buddy? Please.

I'm sorry but the RCC position that Baptism is a necessity for salvation is no "strawman". How many more Councils and Popes do I have to quote? Given that position, pretending to leave some possibility of salvation open for the unbaptized, WITHOUT DIRECTLY SAYING SO, is incoherent. I note that LH back on March 7 conceded that the unbaptized could not go to Heaven BECAUSE OF ORIGINAL SIN.

So again, where is the "strawman"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sorry but the RCC position that Baptism is a necessity for salvation is no "strawman". How many more Councils and Popes do I have to quote? Given that position, pretending to leave some possibility of salvation open for the unbaptized, WITHOUT DIRECTLY SAYING SO, is incoherent. I note that LH back on March 7 conceded that the unbaptized could not go to Heaven BECAUSE OF ORIGINAL SIN.

So again, where is the "strawman"?

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:

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. 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.

Simply saying that 'Baptism is a necessity for salvation' is a strawman because it excludes some special cases where baptism is not necessary.

One must note that in the broad sense, Baptism IS a necessity, but there are exceptions.

Examples? Just look to the next lines.

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." 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," 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.

Originally posted by Palynka
One must note that in the broad sense, Baptism IS a necessity, but there are exceptions.

This is the problem that #1 (and anyone who knows formal logic) is having.

To say something is a necessity and then say that it isn't always necessary makes no
formal sense.

This is the problem.

Where #1 is (rightly) having difficulty is that the Church has seemed to equivocate on the issue;
whereas in the Council of Trent, there is no 'exception clause,' the Church has (and rightly, I feel)
added addenda to the dogma, making exceptions where it seems spiritually reasonable.

However, they haven't had a corresponding change in their language -- they have kept the term
necessity even though they provide exceptions. This is the problem -- equivocation.

Another deeply, deeply, DEEPLY frustrating thing is LH is (in this case) offering a
moving target; I have asked in the past (and never received) a definitive list of what documents
are infallible so that they might be scrutinized. That the Catechism is 'authoritative' but not
infallible is just so damn frustrating because, in the past, LH has cited (with great confidence) the
text of the Catechism and leaned upon its authoritativeness. However, when the Catechism is
inconsistent with another so-called authoritative document or statement of the Church, there is this
back-door escape hatch: Well, duh, it's not infallible.

However, lacking a comprehensive list of the infallible documents makes #1s efforts a complete
waste, because there is always a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. That we cannot rely on authoritative
documents to be, well, authoritative, is just equivocation beyond what a reasonable person should
be expected to tolerate.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Another deeply, deeply, DEEPLY frustrating thing is LH is (in this case) offering a
moving target; I have asked in the past (and never received) a definitive list of what documents
are infallible so that they might be scrutinized. That the Catechism is 'authoritative' but not
infallible is just so damn frustrating because, in the past, LH has cited (with ...[text shortened]... tement of the Church, there is this
back-door escape hatch: Well, duh, it's not infallible.

It's the same old Simon Says game. We see it come up time after time after time.

You must be baptized.
Simon didn't say you must be baptized!

Limbo exists.
Simon didn't say limbo exists!

Don't use a condom because it's sinful.
Simon didn't say don't use a condom because it's sinful!

Convert your fellow man using torture and fear.
Simon didn't say convert your fellow man using torture and fear!

And on and on and on.


This is a game that quickly grew tedious for me as a child. Surprisingly, it has entertained Catholics for centuries.

Without the escape hatch you cite, Catholic doctrine would collapse upon itself, due to the very sorts of contradictions pointed out in this thread. And the Church couldn't have that, could they? Hence, the game continues... Give the people the necessary loophole to keep them dancing even when Simon doesn't say to. After all, they really, really want to dance - it feels so good for some people to be told what to do.

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is the problem that #1 (and anyone who knows formal logic) is having.

To say something is a necessity and then say that it isn't always necessary makes no
formal sense.

This is the problem.

I think the problem is demanding (or expecting) the RCC write in the language of formal logic.

In a religion dependent on faith, it doesn't make much sense to me to interpret the Church's words in such a formal way.

In the current sense, I don't see anything incoherent about the statement that something is a necessity, but that allows exceptions.

Originally posted by Palynka


In the current sense, I don't see anything incoherent about the statement that something is a necessity, but that allows exceptions.

Then you need to take an introductory course in critical thinking, in particular to revise your notions of coherence and necessity.

Formal language is not necessary to avoid equivocation. A sincere and clear-thinking person will automatically avoid equivocation even when using common language. Equivocation arises out of insincerity or confusion.

But that's not even the issue, because the Church doesn't want to avoid equivocation - the Church is intentionally using equivocation. Eliminating equivocation would be against its interests, since to do so would be to cause its doctrine to reduce to one big contradiction. Equivocation is the very framework that keeps it standing. It's at the heart of its design. You can see it at work in every last one of lucifershammer's arguments about Catholicism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The most ironic part of this entire discussion is that you previously indicated that you believed in Limbo as the most logical disposition of this problem, yet now insist that RCC doctrine is perfectly consistent with the idea that unbaptized infants and fetuses can gain salvation. Why bother to believe in Limbo at all then?

I don't see the irony here. RCC doctrine is consistent with unbaptised infants and fetuses being saved, but does not specify a mechanism for such salvation. The traditional descriptions of the mechanism of salvation require Limbo for consistency, so I believed in Limbo as the more logical choice (which is not inconsistent with Church teaching either).

Now, if a salvific mechanism that did not require Limbo were to be developed, then I would have no problems revising those beliefs (and the SDG comment I referred to in a link in an earlier post seems to hold the key to such a mechanism).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Remember this from March 7 of this year:

LH: Why not? [b]They can't enter Heaven due to original sin, and don't deserve Hell as they've never sinned. Limbo as a state of eternal natural happiness sounds like a perfectly nice place to be.

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39420

EDIT: Compare and contrast with ...[text shortened]... heaven and still retain the "original sin" doctrine?

LH: Yes it can.



QED.[/b]

QED what??

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is the problem that #1 (and anyone who knows formal logic) is having.

To say something is a necessity and then say that it isn't always necessary makes no
formal sense.

This is the problem.

Where #1 is (rightly) having difficulty is that the Church has seemed to equivocate on the issue;
whereas in the Council of Trent, there i quivocation beyond what a reasonable person should
be expected to tolerate.

Nemesio

To say something is a necessity and then say that it isn't always necessary makes no formal sense.

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.

whereas in the Council of Trent, there is no 'exception clause,'

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; therefore the fact that there is no explicit exception clause does not mean there wasn't already an implicit one. In this context one must then ask what was the purpose (historically, theologically) in positing the statement to understand what the Fathers intended and, therefore, what the teaching really is (as opposed to what it appears to be with a superficial reading).

Another deeply, deeply, [b]DEEPLY frustrating thing is LH is (in this case) offering a moving target[/b]

Hey! Don't accuse me of something without providing the evidence.

I have asked in the past (and never received) a definitive list of what documents are infallible so that they might be scrutinized.

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? Given a particular document it is not difficult to say whether the teaching it contains was infallibly proclaimed (if it was promulgated in that document) or to follow the chain of documents back for a particular teaching to see whether it was infallibly proclaimed.

EDIT: That doesn't mean it can always be done on the Internet, of course.

That the Catechism is 'authoritative' but not infallible is just so damn frustrating because, in the past, LH has cited (with great confidence) the text of the Catechism and leaned upon its authoritativeness.

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.

Whether the particular teaching has been infallibly proclaimed or not has to be determined by looking at the primary sources. A teaching that has been infallibly proclaimed remains infallible when it's put in the CCC; a teaching that has not stays not.

However, when the Catechism is inconsistent with another so-called authoritative document or statement of the Church, there is this back-door escape hatch: Well, duh, it's not infallible.

Show me where I used that defence, Nemesio. You're accusing me of offering moving targets simply because you misread the target I put forward in the first place.

That we cannot rely on authoritative documents to be, well, authoritative, is just equivocation beyond what a reasonable person should be expected to tolerate.

Please. Just because you and no1 can't seem distinguish between authoritative and infallible does not mean a reasonable person can't. Supreme Court judgments are authoritative -- but no one expects them to be infallible. If the reasonable man can see the difference there, why would he expect the two words to mean the same thing with the RCC?

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.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But that's not even the issue, because the Church doesn't want to avoid equivocation - the Church is intentionally using equivocation. Eliminating equivocation would be against its interests, .... You can see it at work in every last one of lucifershammer's arguments about Catholicism.

Any more Big Bad Conspiracy theories I should know about?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't see the irony here. RCC doctrine is consistent with unbaptised infants and fetuses being saved, but does not specify a mechanism for such salvation. The traditional descriptions of the mechanism of salvation require Limbo for consistency, so I believed in Limbo as the more logical choice (which is not inconsistent with Church teaching e ...[text shortened]... comment I referred to in a link in an earlier post seems to hold the key to such a mechanism).

Perhaps you should try actually thinking for yourself and that way you might avoid expressing contradictory positions on the same issue in the same forum while insisting that they are consistent.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
QED what??

It has been demonstrated that you took a position in March which is inconsistent with your position today. If there was some type of constructive Baptism you believed in in March, Original Sin would not have a complete barrier to unbaptized fetuses going to Heaven. But your statement is that they can't go to Heaven because of "original sin".

Perhaps I am unfairly using the standard definitions of words when a special RCC meaning is intended by you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you should try actually thinking for yourself and that way you might avoid expressing contradictory positions on the same issue in the same forum while insisting that they are consistent.

Perhaps you should try reading what is being written instead of running to your third-grade nephew for the latest in playground taunts and abuses. That way you might actually learn something.

EDIT: Perhaps you should also try making specific rebuttals to arguments than general lob-a-few-and-see-if-something-sticks insults.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It has been demonstrated that you took a position in March which is inconsistent with your position today. If there was some type of constructive Baptism you believed in in March, Original Sin would not have a complete barrier to unbaptized fetuses going to Heaven. But your statement is that they can't go to Heaven because of "original sin".

Pe ...[text shortened]... fairly using the standard definitions of words when a special RCC meaning is intended by you.

It has been demonstrated that you took a position in March which is inconsistent with your position today.

Even assuming that's true - so what?? People change their minds when encountering new information.

Perhaps I am unfairly using the standard definitions of words when a special RCC meaning is intended by you.

No, you're unfairly taking words out of context (linguistic, historical, domain of knowledge) and trying to apply a modern, 21st century common language (EDIT: sometimes a US legal) dictionary definition to them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It has been demonstrated that you took a position in March which is inconsistent with your position today.

Even assuming that's true - so what?? People change their minds when encountering new information.

Perhaps I am unfairly using the standard definitions of words when a special RCC meaning is intended by you.

No, you' ...[text shortened]... dge) and trying to apply a modern, 21st century common language dictionary definition to them.[/b]

Yet, when I quote earlier theologians, including saints and Popes, you cry foul. How perfectly contemptible.

What "new information" have you received? Please share it with us.