Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy."

This only works when the Pope and Bishops are making de fide statements that have the necessary criteria to be infallible regardless of numbers of bishops. Any innovative pronouncements that are not part of the Deposit of Faith have no spiritual backing whatsoever. This would apply to some of the things stated in the Vatican Two Council, which the Popes themselves claimed was a pastoral council and not a council making de fide statements, hence opening itself up to errors. This despite the fact that the Pope and majority of bishops would agree on an erroneous point.

As for the SSPX, I told you before that going to the New Rite of Mass or the Indult Mass offered by the Society of St. Peter has nothing to do with the validity of the mass itself. It has everything to do with the bastardization of the new mass and the fact that those under the auspices of the Fraternity of St. Peter who say the Indult must agree with the bastardization of the New mass as told to them by their local diocesan bishop. Plus now they must even celebrate it too. That's why one should not attend the indult. It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Hiya RJT,


So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya RJT,


So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't really have much time right now. But for now, Jesus' words are static. Like <u>Moby Dick</u> the words on the page don't change.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy. Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?

[ QUOTE ]
It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not an essesntial matter of faith. And in fact the liturgical rite to which you belong is canonically determined by that of your parents. Thus most of us belong to the western/Roman rite as opposed to one of the Eastern Rites. But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination. Your position is no different than if you decided you wanted to attend a Sarum Rite mass if some priests would celebrate it, and all without canonical permission.

Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church. If you maintain otherwise, then once again you are merely adopting a position based upon the spirit of protestantism.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy."

Of course Vatican II's erroneous statements can be heretical. Any statement made that contradicts traditional doctrine is heresy no matter the source. How could it be otherwise?

"Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?"

No. The Liturgy is the highest expression of the Catholic Faith because it is the highest form of worship. The whole thing is implicitly and explicitly an expression of Catholic Dogma contained in practical worship.

"But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination."

Of course, they can choose any rite they wish. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Novus Ordo rite of Mass has removed the Catholicity of the mass to appease Protestants and is a bastardized rite that should not be used for it leads one to false conclusions of the Catholic Faith. See the Ottaviani Report for a start.

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church." But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church."

But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

See you can't have it both ways. If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare"). And if it's not doctrine, then it is a practice regulated by canon law, and the canonical decision is necessarily right since the bishops and pope have the right to make the determinations which should be followed, and failing to do so is disobediance.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

god has just PMed me, he says you are both crazy. he's sorry he won't be able to participate since he's busy bonus whoring, but in any case he doesn't have anything to say. he also sends his love and regards. (he's running pretty bad at the moment, in fact, so he's not in such a great mood).

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare")."

No it does not. The only time a council or Pope do not use the "I define and declare" line is when they merely reaffirm a previous dogma already declared (which they did do in Vatican II at places, which is fine). This is a restatement of an infallible doctrine and is therefore also infallible. As mentioned previously, a synod of Bishops and Popes affirming something new is no guarantee of infalliblity unless specifically invoked. And whatever they affirm cannot be a new innovation, but a Deposit of the Faith.

That being said, where have a synod of Bishops and Pope ever affirm the Novus Ordo Rite? This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...apistzen_1.jpg

http://http://www.picturehosting.org...istretreat.jpg

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so? And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so?"

It is so because the indefectability of the Church does not prevent a Pope from introducing new, defective, or erroneous rites. The Pope can introduce the chicken dance in the mass if he wants and make it legally valid.

That being said, there is an argument that Paul VI did not even properly promulgate the Novus Ordo rite, merely giving priests permission to say it at the most. But that is not needed for this specific argument.

"And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?"

First of all, it was not a response to Vatican II. Vatican II did not attempt to change the rite. If you read the documents on the liturgy it actually emphasizes that we should preserve the latin and that there may be some investigations made into using the vernacular in a limited way at certain points of the Mass. That is all.

The Novus Ordo rite was a completely uncalled for and unnecessary rite initiated by Bugnini and other Vatican officials to Protestantize the mass. The biggest question Catholics were asking when it came out was: why? Nobody had asked for a change except for the modernists of course.

As noted above, it is arguable that there is no legal basis for having this as the current rite of mass. But assuming that it is, then it is just a legal adoption. There is no infallibility or indefectability involved in having all the bishops use it.

The country of Lithuania practiced the Tridentine rite of Mass up until 1994 because there was no reason or basis to adopt the Novus Ordo rite. Only when their Cardinal retired and some modernist Vatican "yes man" was appointed did they introduce the Novus Ordo rite.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

You constantly weasel around and instead of saying this or that is definitely wrong/heretical because ABC, you say stuff like "does not prevent", "there is an argument that", or that someone is "suspected" of heresy. A bunch of insinuations only and a classic rhetorical technique of using a lot of "maybes" and "might bes" and then saying where there is smoke there has to be fire.

And the fact remains, that however wrong or ill-advised certain administrative and liturgical changes might have been, if you cannot prove that they were heretical then you in SSPX have no basis for liturgical/canonical disobedience merely because your preferences haven't been met.

And how is it, that the entire church, larger than all other christian denominations combined, with close to a billion faithful in communion with Rome, with thousands of bishops and hundreds of thousands of priests, is so completely wrong on all these things while your group with only 4 bishops and 50 priests stands alone in resisting the dastardly plot to protestantize the catholic liturgy and its theology?

Your group with all its comspiracy theories and inuendos and self-serving rationalizations are the McCarthyites of catholocism. The John Birch Society of religion.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that the meaning changes. I don’t really think I said that. It is our understanding that becomes enhances (probably a better word). This is similar to how we as individuals evolve (not literally as science uses the word) as we get older. Perhaps wisdom is the best word of all. As one grows older one certainly has more wisdom (really wisdom without the word “more” - I am not sure if wisdom is something one can have in youth). If you do not view our Church as a Living Church than you probably won’t agree with me.

Certainly you have to agree that we constantly study our texts and tradition. If not, then are you suggesting we retire all theologians? The Holy Spirit might as well sit back and take an eternal sabbatical, too, then. Perhaps, you do consider our Church static as Bluff suggests in the other thread. Where would you have our Church have stopped - with Augustine?

Your final paragraph suggests more of what I had in mind with my post.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Hiya BluffTHIS,

Can you explain to me something that I find a bit hard to fathom. If there are issues that are non-doctrinal and don't call the infallibilty principle into play, why are they compulsory and to which extend so? Severing the communion with the church, excommunication, sin (mortal?)?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are talking about. god too has no idea what you are talking about. was it some joke about buddhists? do you think me and god are buddhists? well, no, lol.

also, god sends you his love again. he appriciates what you are doing "for" him, but really, he would prefer if you just listen to hawaian music as a way of worshiping him. he LOVES hawaian music, especially this dude. very recommended. and good prices. the pope would love it, i'm sure.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

What am I weaseling around? My point in this whole thread was that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church is heretical which I proved logically.

Now you have had to avert the argument to an attack on Traditionalist Catholics, trying to say they are schismtatic, heretical or what not due to your erroneous views on Papal and Church indefectability, the New rite of Mass, and Canon Law. I have answered all these points directly with relevant historical examples where necessary.

Now again, to avert attention you are attacking the SSPX. What is the SSPX? Merely a group of Priests, Seminarians and Bishops who since the early 70's have opened up seminaries to teach authentic Catholic doctrine without modernist influence. Naturally, because modernists hate Catholicism, they are attacked relentlessly. But despite this, the SSPX seminaries have the highest number of vocations in their respective countries. Do you deny there is a crisis in the modern Catholic Church concerning vocations and priestly morals?

You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses who are the asses. 2+2'ers make the minority in the poker world. Does this make them wrong? What is the correlation between population and truth? I would think the only relevant one is the number of vocations produced, and the SSPX has the post conciliar Church's ass kicked there.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

The German poet and philosopher Schiller, when asked,"To which of the existing religions do you confess?" said "To none." And when he was asked why, he replied-"For religious reasons!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

carlo

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post a similar thought: Jesus didn’t speak Latin.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses"

Didn't you steal that line from the Orthodox Jews?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Yes you have answered those questions before. But only after you defined and interpreted every term of the argument to suit yourself. YOUR liturgical judgements. YOUR canonical interpretations. YOUR theological views. Nowhere is there deference to or respect for the chair of Peter, the Church as a whole and its Magisterium, or the efficaceous action of the Holy Spirit in keeping the church doctrinally sound. Thus, you and your fellows in SSPX effectively have no communion with the Bishop of Rome or the espiscopacy. And its all about your own interpretations of everything theological, liturgical and canonical. Once again, the very basis of protestantism, High Church Anglicans at best (nothing wrong with them - but they're not catholics).


[ QUOTE ]
You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses who are the asses. 2+2'ers make the minority in the poker world. Does this make them wrong? What is the correlation between population and truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget the billion of the faithful sheep who as you say are faithful but mostly unknowlegeable. But all the views of SSPX springs from its "brain trust" of ordained bishops and priests, who are aligned against their brother priests and bishops who are in full communion with the see of Rome. Let's just compare those numbers again.

Roman Catholic Church:
Bishops 3,000+
Priests 100,000+


SSPX:
Bishops 4
Priests 50

And how many of those SSPX priests/bishops hold advanced theological degrees (STD) compared to those in the Roman Catholic Church? Intellectually what you have is is the grad students of the SSPX versus the PhDs of the RCC. And grad students who were educated by someone with a 1950's knowledge.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

You make it sound like there is no objective truth. You are advocating that mere obedience to a higher authority will always lead one to the objective truth.

I already showed and proved what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches on the necessity of Baptism for infants, while you and modernists have had to employ all sorts of smoke and mirrors to try and justify the error in the CCC. Whether one person believes it or 1 billion makes no difference to your objective error.

Any Catholic wanting to know the Church's teaching would pick up the CCC thinking it would provide the correct answer. People of good will are doing this, and are being hoodwinked into accepting a modernist lie. Naturally, this leads them down the path of modernism which has enveloped the whole Church from top to bottom for a good 40 years.

On a side note, did you agree with the invasion of Iraq even though pope John Paul II demanded that it should not be done?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I really don't care what religion you are, as long as you aren't a hypocrite. The picture of the two priests above is a terrible scandal because they claim to be Catholics when in reality they are not. One is a secular priest and the other is a Capuchin. The priest is blessing the Capuchin who is being acknowledged for his practice of Buddism and Buddhist meditation. That of course is a direct violation of the first commandment for Catholics.

And what is even worse, they are seen as priests in good standing with the Catholic Church, and are in "100% communion with Rome" which BluffTHIS thinks is necessary to be a good Catholic these days.

Of course, under normal circumstances it is necessary to be in 100% communion with Rome. But in an abnormal crisis situation like today, doing that may lead to loss of the Faith.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Peter666,

I assume you agree that the Ecumenical Council’s at Trent (the 19th EC) main objective was to express in definitive form some Catholic Doctrine. I am not sure how much of the following you will agree with, though.

When viewing <u>Trent</u>, one cannot ignore the times in which it was convened. (At that time - 1845 to 1563 - people were under-emphasizing the importance of Baptism and in some cases were criticizing the Church for baptizing infants.) We should not ignore the notion that what was in the consciousness of the participants at Trent has a direct impact on words chosen there and how they were chosen. Their mindset has a direct effect on what was explicitly stated and what was not. (Additionally, we keep in mind that they were concerned with our generation as well as their own.)

[An aside for the non-Christian:

The authors of the U. S. Constitution included everything they could foresee (and/or could agree upon at the time) that was necessary to establish rules for our Nation. Yet, they made no provision to bar further amendments.]

This is not a direct analogy, if for no other reason, than because of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in our doctrine. The important thing to keep in mind, Peter, is that the HS’s involvement does not connote totality in <u>Trent</u>. If totality were the case, we would have been able to stop at Nicaea - the 1st Council - and never would have needed <u>Trent</u>.

The main point of all this is to explain that, although, <u>Trent</u> says: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema”; it is important to note that it does not explicitly talk about infants. Sure, infants are included here; but, <u>Trent</u> does not get involved with the “infant debate”.

Since the Church “allows” for Baptism in different forms (as you have already noted); we can leave open the possibility that infants might indeed be baptized prior to death without our human knowledge of it. How this can happen is not important - we can use our imagination. ( Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!) Without specific doctrine regarding this issue it is fine to use such words as “hope for Salvation of the infant”.

[ QUOTE ]
I already showed and proved what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches on the necessity of Baptism for infants,…

[/ QUOTE ]

The above quote of yours might indeed be true. But, you have not shown/proven the New Catechism quote in question is heresy.

RJT

If you cannot see this, then please reconcile for me Augustine’s view of the un - baptized infant with Thomas Aquinas’. (This is a rhetorical challenge, I really have no interest in going further. If you want a final response, I‘ll listen; but I probably won‘t spend much more time on the topic.)

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
... One is a secular priest and the other is a Capuchin. The priest is blessing the Capuchin who is being acknowledged for his practice of Buddism and Buddhist meditation. That of course is a direct violation of the first commandment for Catholics...


[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me Peter666, what exactly is that first commandement?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

What you are suggesting is that it is possible for infants to somehow be baptized without our knowledge (like through a miracle of baptism of desire). Now I can give you all sorts of reasons why God would not do this but I CANNOT accuse you of heresy, because there is none present.

Unfortunately, the CCC does not say that we may hope for God to provide a way for unbaptized children to be baptized and hence reach salvation through implicit desire.

It explicity and implicity states that we can hope for the UNBAPTIZED to reach salvation.

Now if you can produce proof that those who wrote the CCC intended to mean your conclusion then they should correct it and be done with it. Problem solved. But the members of the clergy whom I have questioned specifically mean what they say: that the UNBAPTIZED go to heaven. 'We don't need Baptism to go heaven, our thinking has evolved.' They are heretics without doubt.

As for John Paul II, he's dead so I don't know what his intention was. But I can suspect him of heresy, and by reading his other writings come to the assumption that in totality, he is a heretic. I cannot officially pronounce this with authority, but I may personally believe it.

As for your mention of Augustine and Aquinas, there is no difference in the belief on the necessity for the baptism of infants. Also, as regards implicit desire of the child, that would be contrary to the words of Christ Himself and teachings of Aquinas.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange God's before me etc...

To realize the full implications of that for a Catholic, you have to know your Moral Theology.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Ah, OK, I thought that it had to do with capuchins and secular priests and was getting very confused here... lol

To put your mind at rest, Buddhism doesn't address the concept of god. bI am not sure what that particlar photo is, but I stronly suspect that it belongs to a Zen sect of Buddhism which came to Japan via the Chines Chan school. I am basing that on the garb and accoutrements. In that context, it probably an invetiture recognising the learning in an academic sense. Very much in the same way that degrees are conferred to graduates at secular universities in the west. Just the bizareness of accoutrements is different.

Peter, just be careful, as the self-appointed, unbiased referee, I must point out that you are loosing points by trying to take advantage of falsehoods to support you position. This is not the only one I have noticed slipping by, and you don't have the luxury of such a large advantage over your opponents that you can afford those types of slips. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I guess even within catholic universities you could gain a degree or doctorate in theology without having to be a believer. In the case of Buddhism, I can only state that there is not even requirement at all for a believe in god in the practice or the study of the religion. The god concept is not at all relevant to Buddhist doctrine. So, there seem to be no breach of commandment by capuchins or others that may wish to study anything. Unless, like there use to be an index, wich doesn't exist any longer afaik, a catholic is not even allowed to enquire into philosophies except in a catholic approved context.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we must view the context of a statement in which it is written. In this case it is the document itself (as opposed to the environment of Trent in my last example). If you observe carefully you will notice how the CCC uses the words Baptism and baptism. (These are not grammatical games here.)

The CCC is entrusting “…[infants] to the mercy of God…” We “hope” for “the fruits of baptism without … a sacrament” (last partial quote is taken from the example of martyrs - 1258 and B and lower case b.)

Regarding Augustine and Thomas: I was not talking specifically about their thinking on the un-baptized infants specifically in regard to our point. Rather, I was referring to the progression of Augustine’s idea of where that infants “reside” to Thomas’ notion.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

MG,

Thank you for clarifying the Buddhist context.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless, like there use to be an index, which doesn't exist any longer afaik, a catholic is not even allowed to enquire into philosophies except in a catholic approved context.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most of us this is not the case (does not apply.) Peter can answer for himself your question quoted here.

RJT

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, when I wrote this a few moments ago, I had no idea science would move so quickly:

Taken from Meromorphic’s link just posted”



[ QUOTE ]

...Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered... human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena...

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like there is no objective truth. You are advocating that mere obedience to a higher authority will always lead one to the objective truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously since you and I differ on what that objective truth is in some cases the question is: how do we know what is correct? An authentic interpeter is required. That would be the Church, through its magisterial teaching authority. If not, then you are left with the protestant basis of individual interpretation, which is what you have basically adopted though you do not wish to call it that.

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, did you agree with the invasion of Iraq even though pope John Paul II demanded that it should not be done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with what you have said in the past that all opinions, even papal ones, are not by any means de fide. Thus JPII's moral judgement in that case is not binding on all catholics. And no I don't agree with it.

Similarly, every single statement in the CCC is not of the same level of certainty. But you and those in SSPX are straining to find minor points of doctrine, "details", in order to justify your liturgical and canonical disobedience and refusal of communion with Rome.

So why doesn't the SSPX just take the action logically consistent with its views. That is, electing its own pontiff and declaring that the rest of the church, with its 3000+ bishops and 100K+ priests, has basically broken off from it the true church with its 4 bishops and 50 priests?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I wonder if Peter will be defending geocentrism next. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

For anyone lurkers who are interested in what some of this hoopla is about, here is a good article:

My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?


I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?

I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I shouldve been more specific about what the article had in it. So it s a good summation of why the SSPX is in fact in schism, the basis of that being some of the points that BluffTHIS has raised in this debate. This debate hasnt been aboutthe SSPX per se, although it has come up and Peter666 seems to be the epitome of the SSPX, splitting hairs in order to justify their lack being in communion with Rome. If your curiousity is in any way piqued, there is plenty of stuff to be googled.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Sorry vulturesrow,

I added the last paragraph to my previous post before you posted.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are you referring to? SSPX was not declared schismatic until their Archbishop consecrated new Bishops, which was clearly a usurpation of the powers of the Pope. Up to that point, SSPX was not in schism. As to ambiguity, Peter666's tactic is to create ambiguity where there is none.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

But aren't you saying that the church set the rules as to when it is legitimate for him to consecrate new bishops. From Peter666 viewpoint it is the church that is in error and therefore he can legitimately consecrate bishops.

That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

I must say those are real byzantines or macchiavellian tricks and politics, to an outsider. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. Strictly from an organizational standpoint dont all organizations set their rules and then enforce them? You seem to be implying that the Church is applying them in some random manner, is that the case?