Couple questions about Christianity

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, its so inappropriate to bring the words of scripture into a debate on christianity among christians (as opposed to quoting it to non-believers).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

I caution you in using the word Christian so loosely when including Petey. Folk around here are going to get the wrong idea of our Religion.

RJT

[Peter666]

How on Earth does that qualify as mocking the apostles or the Pope? That is ridiculous.

So what now? St. Paul did not condemn St. Peter for the scandal he created? Are you going to deny scripture too?

[Peter666]

I did quote the entire text of Canon 5. This is my source:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Decree on the Sacraments, Decrees on Baptism:

"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

I don't know what you are referring too.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I proved the CCC was heretical. And why won't I get a straight answer to this question:

Can we hope or not hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants? If we can hope for it, how can you reconcile this with the Dogma that without baptism no one can enter Heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't proved any such thing. All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state. It says in my quote of it above that unbaptized infants are entrusted to the mercy of God. That does not extrapolate into "hoping that they are saved".

You strain at gnats in order to justify the disobedience and schism of the SSPX to which you adhere. And accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops, only makes you the heretic. SSPX has set itself not just against JPII and the CCC, but against the entire church since the episcopate overwhelmingly acknowledges the orthodoxy of JPII and the CCC. And if you say that is just because JPII appointed most of them, then you are denying the efficaceous action of the Holy Spirit as well.

[Peter666]

"All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state."

This is too funny. I am directly quoting the CCC and now you claim it does not state what it explicity and implicitly states. You only look at this: "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...." which I fully agree with and do not dispute, while you purposely ignore this: "...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."" Did I make this up in my evil heretical imagination? What do these words in bold state?

You accuse me of trying to assert that the mercy of God quote "extrapolates" into allowing the unbaptized to be saved, while I am merely quoting the passage as found and taught in the CCC word for word. You have purposely blinded yourself to the exact words of the CCC to slander me by saying I am the one teaching that the CCC says we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.

Millions of people and even nations have been separated from the Catholic Church for holding onto one single heresy (the Arian heresy, the Orthodox heresy) and I am accused of "straining at gnats" when I point out an obvious contradiction between the CCC and Catholic Dogma.

You even call me a heretic for "accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops," When a synod of bishops could not even possibly convene if there were not an accusation of heresy to begin with. What, would they all gather in silence magically to only then make official pronouncements of heresy?

Please point out the dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church that makes "accusing a Pope of heresy" a heresy. Especially in light of the fact that two other Popes in history were accused of heretical views, and later had their ideas condemned.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words.

Regarding heresy, you are not just accusing one or more popes of heterdox views. You would like to think that so that you don't have to confront the implications of your views. Since the documents of Vatican II (not a dogmatic council) were the result of the synod of bishops and confirmed by Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes (read your Bishop Fellay's comments about his interview with Benedict XVI and Papa Benedict's statements), then the SSPX and you have aligned yourselves against the entire church. Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church and that is what heresy is, a denial of truths held by the entire church. You and your group are not just a vox clamatus in deserto to the silent majority being lead astray by a pope, but those who deny that which is held by the vast majority of the episcopate including most importanly the see of Rome. If you really believe the words of scripture that the Holy Spirit will keep the church as a whole as opposed to one pontiff who is not speaking in an infallible pronouncement, free from doctrinal error, then you must see that this is so.

And although SSPX likes to try to use clever canonical arguments to say that they are not really in breach of communion, it is logically clear that by its stated positions, that when the first pontiff who has been ordained a priest according to the "new" rite is elected, that you will then essentially be sede vacantists.

[RJT]

Peter,

The problem, I think, we have here is in your interpretation of infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. I take it you disagree with the following in which case there isn’t much point in discussion things further.

[ QUOTE ]
How Many Infallible Teachings?
By Father Pat McCloskey, O.F.M.
Q U I C K S C A N St. Anthony Messenger Press
August, 2004

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Why Did They Want Jesus to Leave?
Why Have a Spiritual Advisor?
'By Faith Alone'

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic.
She says that the Church has spoken infallibly
only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and
Mary’s Assumption.

I say that it has spoken infallibly many times,
especially through its 21 ecumenical councils.
Which one of us is right?

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct.
Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in
1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly
declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and
sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements
as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary
magisterium (teaching role) has been used only
once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly
defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption
is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that
teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s
liturgy.

Since 1870, some people have argued that
canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that
assertion is a debatable point at this time.

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are
automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed
(adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.)
states the faith of the Church on a very crucial
point: Is Jesus “of the same substance” [nature]
as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said
that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing
Profession of Faith and inserted the term
homoousious (“of the same substance”) at the
proper place. This is an infallible statement of
what the Church believes.

That same creed was expanded at the Council of
Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more
explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy
Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted
in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that
it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does
not understand infallibility to mean that.

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential
judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in
the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves:
Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations
with non-Christians? Should the council’s
treatment of Mary be a separate document or part
of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church?
Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly
condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible
teachings on matters of faith and morals, they
have also made some prudential judgments about
which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical
council can be binding without being declared
infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council
(1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury
(charging any interest on a loan). Usury was
later understood as charging excessive interest
on a loan.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible
when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and
successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some
revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra
(“from the chair”). He must intend to teach
infallibly and make this known at the time of
that teaching.

Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the
Church’s ordinary teaching authority
(magisterium) and are understood as authentic
teachings—but not infallible in the sense of
Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT

Umm, as a disinterested and uninvolved party who has nothing to gain by the victory of either argument (I'll definetely go to hell in both cases), I feel I may make a good referee, nothwithsatnding the fact that I was baptised in this august body rites, albeit without anyone asking my opinion or consent on the matter. Even, if some may consider this, not staying in my lane. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Hey, if good enough for you, good enough for me, bigdaddydvo. I am, after all, only trying to bring about a reconciliation from an objective viewpoint. I must say that from a logical point of view, both parties are making some aerobatics, but it seems that Peter has consistently gained the advantage with his application of logic. He seems to have more internal choerence with his arguments. OTOH, was it not for the threat to discontinue or ignore the debate, a sure sign of accepting defeat, or at least used as such by most theist faced with the incontrovertible, the last post of RJT may have diminished Peter's abvantage without quite overcoming it. The game is not over till the fat lady sings. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

RJT, I am very interested in a couple of point you raise in your last post. It seems that I could be a good catholic and still consider the cult of saints and canonisation as supertition and voodoo!? Am I understanding this right? I don't think it will delight some of my catholics friends in our coming discussions.

There seem to be a bit of wobbling regarding infallibility also, or a variety of infallibilities, with different precedences. It seems that what is teaching of the church could change with the seasons. And what is to be believed today may not be tomorrow. Of course, I find this problematic, both as I see it as a form of trying to cheat according to the rules, and also, from a certain compassion I have for all those that may have been mislead in their faith.

Anyway I find this thread most enjoyable and should one party explicitely or implicitely accept defeat, I am sure that there are many other issues which could be traeted in the same fashion.

Thanks guys

[Peter666]

I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

[Peter666]

Anybody who wishes to judge the logic of the parties involved without bias is more than welcome. Nobody needs to agree or be very knowledgable about Catholic Church history or teaching to see logical errors in an argument.