Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:04 PM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 241
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:48 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:25 PM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-25-2005, 12:40 AM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-25-2005, 12:43 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default 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.)
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:08 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:22 AM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:29 AM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:46 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-25-2005, 02:34 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.