Patron saints

[Rhamiel]

here is something interesting if you are talking about exccomunication
More on Excommunication » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

 

[judechild]

In bolded responses:

That didn't come out right did it?

I wouldn't know, considering I don't know what you're talking about. If you're implying that there is some significance to my saying that a particular doctrine "does not exist during their time," then you're confused on what doctrine is. A doctrine is a formal teaching; before a doctrine is formalized, it is not a doctrine. Of course we believe that the doctrines are true, and that they have always been true, but "doctrine" is only a formalized testiment to that truth.

Canada, some say eh in Canada. THought it a nice way to keep the conversation going.

Oh, well if you're from Canada; God save the Queen.

You're asking for defiitional agreement without its definition?

I'm asking if the Body of Christ and "the Church" are predicate-nominatives. That is to say, I'm asking if anything that I say about "the Body of the Christ" can also be said about "the Church" (as per Ephesians 1:22-23). Of course the definition will probably be expanded later, but we've got to go slowly through it, considering each atomic part. If you'd prefer, we'll treat it as a new axiom then, and not as a definition.

Arguments from silence and ignorance. Not "non-evidence is evidence".

Oh please. I've explained to you what an argument from silence is, and it means "non-evidence is evidence." Let me demonstrate again. An argumentum ex silentio is when you are trying to disprove concept x, by pointing out that evidence y does not exist. The problem with this argument is that, while evidence y does not exist, evidence z may also be sufficient to prove the truth of concept x.

Here is an example:

If multiple sources in 1st century Palestine directly uphold the actual existence of Christ, that is sufficient to prove that Christ actually existed. But there are not multiple sources in Palestine in the First century that do this; therefore, Christ did not actually exist.

This is an argument from silence, and it fails to establish its conclusion; that is because, while it may be true that there are not multiple sources in 1st century Palestine that directly uphold the actual existence of Christ, there are other sources that give evidence to His actual existence. The argument from silence says "non-y is evidence that x is false" or, "non-evidence is evidence that x is false," and therefore "non-evidence is evidence." The main problem with this is, of course, non-evidence is just that - not evidence for any position.

You have used an argumentum ex silentio when you continually return to saying "They had two perfect examples from which to teach the idea of prayer to/from the deceased in Stephen and James son of Zebedee. The apostles didn't." You are then implying that if the Apostles had said in the Gospels or Epistles "pray for the intercession of Stephen," then that would be sufficient to prove that saintly intercession is an apostolic practice. But there is not such a statement in the Gospels or Epistles; therefore, you say, saintly intercession is not an apostolic practice. But this is commiting the same Fallacy as the person denying the actual existence of Christ - because you will not consider that evidence z (which I am currently in the process of building) is also sufficient to prove x.

Now, I have formally proved that you have used an Argument from Silence; prove that I have done the same. Remember that you will have to sahow that I have said "x is true, because y is sufficient to prove x is false, but y does not exist; therefore, x is true."

You're arguing for a practice despite no apostolic evidence for it. It's not a fallacy to say there is no evidence.

There is no guesswork involved in determining whether a person has committed a fallacy. A fallcy is a formal error in reasoning, like your persistence in using an argumentum ex silentio. In order to validly accuse me of an argument from ignorance, you will have to show where I have said or implied "Standing Up and Zazal have not proved that Saintly Intercession is not an apostolic practice, therefore, Saintly Intercession is an apostolic practice." You have failed to do this, and will continue to, because I have not committed this fallacy. I am in the process of proving the legitamacy of saintly intercession, and doing it by building on mutually-agreed-upon principles.

We don't know your definition. You're suggesting any old Christian may or may not be in heaven. How about Protestants after the time of Unam Sanctum? Given you apparently believe in this idea of "same on earth, same on heaven", then to excommunicate a Christian on earth for some reason is to posthumously excommunicate the same in heaven. Or did I miss something?

It is not necessary to have an entire definition yet; the only relevant part at the moment is whether the Body of Christ is the Church. And you are equivocating on the term Christian. I've intentionally left the definition of Christian in the most abstract since: "one who is a member of the Body of Christ." You are using the word "Christian" to mean "one who is Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant." At the moment, we're only considering theory, not particulars. Can you deny that a hypothetical Christian (whoever that Christian may be) who has died remains a member of the one Body of Christ?

Like I suggested, build your axioms ...

I will do that as soon as you answer my question whether "the Body of Christ" and "the Church" are predicate-nominatives (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).

And have you noticed, the four axioms so far, combined with the definitions, have already justified a part of Catholic Tradition in the sceme of Apostolic teaching? If, that is, you agree that the Body of Christ is the Church, then the conclusion is very apparent that those who have died and gone before us are still members of the Church. This is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints. Now, calm down; I did not say that it proves the Catholic understanding of the Communion of the Saints in all of its particulars; only that it proes a small part of it (that the Saints are still members of the Church).

 

[Standing Up]

I wouldn't know, considering I don't know what you're talking about. If you're implying that there is some significance to my saying that a particular doctrine "does not exist during their time," then you're confused on what doctrine is. A doctrine is a formal teaching; before a doctrine is formalized, it is not a doctrine. Of course we believe that the doctrines are true, and that they have always been true, but "doctrine" is only a formalized testiment to that truth.



Oh, well if you're from Canada; God save the Queen.



I'm asking if the Body of Christ and "the Church" are predicate-nominatives. That is to say, I'm asking if anything that I say about "the Body of the Christ" can also be said about "the Church" (as per Ephesians 1:22-23). Of course the definition will probably be expanded later, but we've got to go slowly through it, considering each atomic part. If you'd prefer, we'll treat it as a new axiom then, and not as a definition.

Again, you're asking to agree with something you haven't openly defined yet (sorta like your not saying this is going somewere).

Oh please. I've explained to you what an argument from silence is, and it means "non-evidence is evidence." Let me demonstrate again. An argumentum ex silentio is when you are trying to disprove concept x, by pointing out that evidence y does not exist. The problem with this argument is that, while evidence y does not exist, evidence z may also be sufficient to prove the truth of concept x.

Here is an example:

If multiple sources in 1st century Palestine directly uphold the actual existence of Christ, that is sufficient to prove that Christ actually existed. But there are not multiple sources in Palestine in the First century that do this; therefore, Christ did not actually exist.

This is an argument from silence, and it fails to establish its conclusion; that is because, while it may be true that there are not multiple sources in 1st century Palestine that directly uphold the actual existence of Christ, there are other sources that give evidence to His actual existence. The argument from silence says "non-y is evidence that x is false" or, "non-evidence is evidence that x is false," and therefore "non-evidence is evidence." The main problem with this is, of course, non-evidence is just that - not evidence for any position.

You have used an argumentum ex silentio when you continually return to saying "They had two perfect examples from which to teach the idea of prayer to/from the deceased in Stephen and James son of Zebedee. The apostles didn't." You are then implying that if the Apostles had said in the Gospels or Epistles "pray for the intercession of Stephen," then that would be sufficient to prove that saintly intercession is an apostolic practice. But there is not such a statement in the Gospels or Epistles; therefore, you say, saintly intercession is not an apostolic practice. But this is commiting the same Fallacy as the person denying the actual existence of Christ - because you will not consider that evidence z (which I am currently in the process of building) is also sufficient to prove x.

Now, I have formally proved that you have used an Argument from Silence; prove that I have done the same. Remember that you will have to sahow that I have said "x is true, because y is sufficient to prove x is false, but y does not exist; therefore, x is true."

Let's try this again.

We have at least 4 sources attesting to Christ, they're known as the gospels. So, to argue for the existence of CHrist is not an argument from silence.

We have zero evidence the apostles taught prayer to the deceased. EVEN WITH beautiful examples. So, to argue that they said it anyway without any evidence is an arguement from silence.

There is no guesswork involved in determining whether a person has committed a fallacy. A fallcy is a formal error in reasoning, like your persistence in using an argumentum ex silentio. In order to validly accuse me of an argument from ignorance, you will have to show where I have said or implied "Standing Up and Zazal have not proved that Saintly Intercession is not an apostolic practice, therefore, Saintly Intercession is an apostolic practice." You have failed to do this, and will continue to, because I have not committed this fallacy. I am in the process of proving the legitamacy of saintly intercession, dispite your having dug in your heels.

No problem. We can go with an RCer is teaching a practice that is not apostolic by using the fallacy of argument from silence.

It is not necessary to have an entire definition yet; the only relevant part at the moment is whether the Body of Christ is the Church. And you are equivocating on the term Christian. I've intentionally left the definition of Christian in the most abstract since: "one who is a member of the Body of Christ." You are using the word "Christian" to mean "one who is Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant." At the moment, we're only considering theory, not particulars. Can you deny that a hypothetical Christian (whoever that Christian may be) who has died remains a member of the one Body of Christ?



I will do that as soon as you answer my question whether "the Body of Christ" and "the Church" are predicate-nominatives (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).

And have you noticed, the four axioms so far, combined with the definitions, have already justified a part of Catholic Tradition in the sceme of Apostolic teaching? If, that is, you agree that the Body of Christ is the Church, then the conclusion is very apparent that those who have died and gone before us are still members of the Church. This is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints. Now, calm down; I did not say that it proves the Catholic understanding of the Communion of the Saints in all of its particulars; only that it proes a small part of it (that the Saints are still members of the Church).

My question is since you believe the Body on earth is the same as the Body in heaven, when your Body on earth declared others of the Body excommunicated when they don't believe as your Body, does that apply to your Body in heaven or purgatory? Simple yes or no. Then we can move on.

 

[Standing Up]

here is something interesting if you are talking about exccomunication
More on Excommunication » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

So, what do you think. Are those dead in Christ who made it to heaven or purgatory or apparently hell (if I read your source right), required to submit to the 4 new Marian dogmas of the 19th century in order to remain in heaven or purgatory? Have the dead Anglicans gone to hell because RC believes their priestly orders invalid?

 

[judechild]

Again, you're asking to agree with something you haven't openly defined yet (sorta like your not saying this is going somewere).

You were confident enough in the definition of "the Body of Christ" to say that a Christian is a member of it, it won't do you much good to say that it's too vague now. I'm simply asking you, from the standpoint of an axiom, if there is a difference between "the Body of Christ" and "the Church." Nothing else is really necessary at this time.

Let's try this again.

We have at least 4 sources attesting to Christ, they're known as the gospels. So, to argue for the existence of CHrist is not an argument from silence.

You have manged to get my point exactly backwards. I was not saying that the believer in Christ's actual existence in 1st Century Palestine is committing an argumentum ex silentio; I was saying that it is the non-believers who do. The four gospels are not "many sources in first century Palestine" since it is obvious that they all came from a single source. The non-existence of multiple sources of direct data attesting to the actual existence of Christ is used by non-believers to say that, therefore, Christ did not actually exist in 1st century Palestine. And that is an argumentum ex silentio.

We have zero evidence the apostles taught prayer to the deceased. EVEN WITH beautiful examples. So, to argue that they said it anyway without any evidence is an arguement from silence.

In the first place, I am in the process of building evidence - and so far the evidence I've presented has not been challenged by you at all. Secondly, you don't understand what an argument from silence is. In order for me to use an argument from silence, I would have to say "I am trying to prove that Saintly Intercession is a legitamit belief (x). Saintly intercession (x) would not be a legitamit belief if the Apostles had said that it is not (if y, then x is false). But the Apostles did not say that Saintly Intercession is not a legitamit belief (y does not exist). Therefore, Saintly Intercession is a legitamit belief (therefore, x is true)." I have not said or implied that as my argument, itaque, I have not committed the formal fallacy of argumentum ex silentio. By the way, it's so nice of you to quietly drop that charge of an argument from ignorance.

You, on the other hand, have committed the formal fallacy of argumentum ex silentio. I've already proved it in my previous post - it's in the post-script for you in case you want to actually challenge it.

No problem. We can go with an RCer is teaching a practice that is not apostolic by using the fallacy of argument from silence.

Then show me where the form of my argument matches the form of "y is sufficient to prove x; but y does not exist. Therefore, x is false." It does not matter what rhetoric you want to use; if you cannot show that the form of my argument corresponds to the form of the formal fallacy, then you have not proved that I have committed a fallacy. I have proved that you have, because I have taken your argument and validly applied it to the form of the argumentum ex silentio.

My question is since you believe the Body on earth is the same as the Body in heaven, when your Body on earth declared others of the Body excommunicated when they don't believe as your Body, does that apply to your Body in heaven or purgatory? Simple yes or no. Then we can move on.

Obedience to doctrine applies only to those in the Church militant, although the truth of it is to the whole Body, and is upheld by the whole body. After all, if something is true, can the souls in Heaven have a false belief about it? The reason that obedience to doctrine only matters to the Christians on Earth is that it is only the souls on Earth that "walk by faith and not by sight." Excommunication is a legal term, and the law is written in reference to the Church militant.

And now that I've answered that question, you can be a good sport, eh, and answer for me: Are you implying that there is more than one Body of Christ? And, are the "Body of Christ" (which you already considered adequetely defined) the same as "the Church," as St. Paul says in Ephesians: "and He hath subjected all things under His feet, and hath made Him head over all the Church, / Which is His body, and the fulness of Him who is filled all in all."

-------------------------------------------------------

You have used an argumentum ex silentio when you continually return to saying "They had two perfect examples from which to teach the idea of prayer to/from the deceased in Stephen and James son of Zebedee. The apostles didn't." You are then implying that if the Apostles had said in the Gospels or Epistles "pray for the intercession of Stephen," then that would be sufficient to prove that saintly intercession is an apostolic practice. But there is not such a statement in the Gospels or Epistles; therefore, you say, saintly intercession is not an apostolic practice.

This is consistent with the fallacious form "y is sufficient to prove x. But y does not exist; therefore, x is false." It translates to: 'A statement in the Gospels or Epistles' is sufficient to prove 'saintly intercession.' But 'a statement in the Gospels or Epistles' does not exist. Therefore, 'saintly intercession' is false."

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
Obedience to doctrine applies only to those in the Church militant, although the truth of it is to the whole Body, and is upheld by the whole body. After all, if something is true, can the souls in Heaven have a false belief about it? The reason that obedience to doctrine only matters to the Christians on Earth is that it is only the souls on Earth that "walk by faith and not by sight." Excommunication is a legal term, and the law is written in reference to the Church militant.

So, you're suggesting there is a difference between the Body on earth and in heaven?

When the Body on earth asserts a doctrine, does that change the Body in heaven? Another example, until 11 years ago, RC recognized the validity of LDS baptism. Presumably a dead LDS prior to then is in purgatory at best. But RC now says LDS baptism doesn't exist. What happens to the Body in heaven/purgatory made up of LDS and other Christians?

And now that I've answered that question, you can be a good sport, eh, and answer for me: Are you implying that there is more than one Body of Christ? And, are the "Body of Christ" (which you already considered adequetely defined) the same as "the Church," as St. Paul says in Ephesians: "and He hath subjected all things under His feet, and hath made Him head over all the Church, / Which is His body, and the fulness of Him who is filled all in all."

I don't understand your answer. I was hoping for a simple yes or no.

No, there is one Body, the Church. We probably, however, disagree over that definition and certainly over the changing impact of new doctrines like the 4 Marian ones essential to the faith of the Church/Body/Christian.

-------------------------------------------------------

You have used an argumentum ex silentio when you continually return to saying "They had two perfect examples from which to teach the idea of prayer to/from the deceased in Stephen and James son of Zebedee. The apostles didn't." You are then implying that if the Apostles had said in the Gospels or Epistles "pray for the intercession of Stephen," then that would be sufficient to prove that saintly intercession is an apostolic practice. But there is not such a statement in the Gospels or Epistles; therefore, you say, saintly intercession is not an apostolic practice.

This is consistent with the fallacious form "y is sufficient to prove x. But y does not exist; therefore, x is false." It translates to: 'A statement in the Gospels or Epistles' is sufficient to prove 'saintly intercession.' But 'a statement in the Gospels or Epistles' does not exist. Therefore, 'saintly intercession' is false."

The argument makes the assumption the apostles could or should have said something. They didn't. IOW, you're nonetheless trying to prove something without the evidence, from silence. BUT, if you want to say the idea of praying to the deceased arose later, not from apostles, but from tradition source X or Y or Z, then have at it.

 

[judechild]

So, you're suggesting there is a difference between the Body on earth and in heaven?

When the Body on earth asserts a doctrine, does that change the Body in heaven? Another example, until 11 years ago, RC recognized the validity of LDS baptism. Presumably a dead LDS prior to then is in purgatory at best. But RC now says LDS baptism doesn't exist. What happens to the Body in heaven/purgatory made up of LDS and other Christians?

No, I am certainly not saying that there is a difference between the Body on Earth and in Heaven. I'm only saying that obedience to doctrine - in the way you've phrased it - makes since only in the case of a person who is currently on Earth.

Obedience to the Law of God is the same way. Yes, theoretically a person in Heaven - being a person with free will - can choose to sin. If the person in Heaven chose to sin, then that person would lose the State of Grace that we call Heaven. In that regard, there is no difference between being a member of the Church on Earth, or in Heaven; the just consequences would be the same. But, because the soul of the Christian in Heaven is fundamentally changed (sanctified), it is no longer practically possible for the Christian to sin. I never said that the method or experience of living is the same in Heaven as on Earth - you tried to insert that premise into my argument, and I explicitly denied it.

Well, the same thing applies in this case. Yes, theoretically, a person in heaven could reject the truth about something, but that is a practically impossible occurance since the intellect and will have been so fundamentally changed. There is no difference in regards to the necessity of obedience, but law is only meaningful if there is the practical possiblility that it could be ignored. Hence, law and doctrine is formulated for those members of the Church on Earth; it is experienced by the Blessed in Heaven - though it still applies to both. Your alternative is to say that the Blessed in Heaven can have a false belief, or refuse their assent to the truth.

As for the smoke-screen that you're trying to put up about Morman baptism, I'll simply point out that the Church has always been clear, long before eleven years ago, that the Trinitarian formula must be used, or the Baptism is invalid. The Church eventually made a public statement about Morman baptism, but she also did not recognize it before that time.

I don't understand your answer. I was hoping for a simple yes or no.

A simple yes or no was not possible, because the question was fundamentally flawed; it did not take into account the different mode of responding to God's law and to the truth. A simple yes would mean that there was a practical possibility that the Blessed in Heaven could reject the truth which they now experience in its fullness. A simple no would mean that there really are two bodies of Christ.

It is the same problem as the question: "Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" The problem cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because the question is flawed; if God is infinitely-powerful, than it makes no sense to talk about something "more powerful than something infinitely-powerful." But that would take more than a yes or no to explain.

No, there is one Body, the Church. We probably, however, disagree over that definition and certainly over the changing impact of new doctrines like the 4 Marian ones essential to the faith of the Church/Body/Christian.

Oh I'm sure we disagree with the definition in all its particulars, but this is a starting point. By saying "there is one Body, the Church," I assume you do mean that the "Body of Christ" and "the Church" are one and the same - therefore predicate-nominatives. This means that we have now agreed to a new Axiom 5: "The Body of Christ is the Church." We have also now fully agreed to all the premises needed to say that the Saints in Heaven are still members of the Church.

The reasoning is that, combining axioms 1-3, a Christian who has died remains an alive, individualized member of the Body of Christ. This Body in Heaven is the same as the Body on Earth (Ax 4), and since all Christians are members of this one Body of Christ, and the one Body is also the Church; it follows that the Christian who is in Heaven is still a member of the Church. This rectifies the Sanctus of the Mass, and the priest's prologue to that prayer (I've already gone over that).

The argument makes the assumption the apostles could or should have said something. They didn't. IOW, you're nonetheless trying to prove something without the evidence, from silence. BUT, if you want to say the idea of praying to the deceased arose later, not from apostles, but from tradition source X or Y or Z, then have at it.

Don't you realize that you've just repeated your own fallacy? When you say "the apostles could or should have said something [in the Gospels or epistles]," (this is y) you are saying that that is something that is sufficient to prove that Saintly Intercession is true (x). But, you say, "they didn't" (this is non-y). Then, you say, that this then means that x is false - without considering whether evidence z might also be sufficient to prove x.

In order for me to use an argumentum ex silentio, I would have to use the silence as my evidence. You aren't accusing me of argumentum ex silentio, and I will prove it. You are accusing me of saying something like this: I believe that Saintly Intercession is true. There is not a direct statement from Peter or Paul etc in the Scriptures that commands Saintly Intercession; therefore, Saintly Intercession is true." But this is not an argumentum ex silentio, because I am not using the "silence" as evidence; I am believing that Saintly Intercession is true in spite of the silence in the matter. What you are accusing me of is a Non Sequitur - a "it does not follow." And if I argued like that then yes, I would be guilty of a non-sequitur. But I am not guilty of that, because you do not yet know all the premises of my argument, and a non sequitur is only possible in the case of a completed argument - and I have never yet reached my conclusion. In fact, so far on every one of my conclusions that I have actually reached, either you or Zazal have agreed with me.

In order for me to use an argumentum ex silentio, I would need to use the silence as my evidence that my position is true. I would have to say "I believe that Saintly Intercession is true. There is no statement from Peter, Paul, et cetera condemning Saintly Intercession; therefore, Saintly Intercession is true." See the difference between this case and what you are actually accusing me of? In the first case, I believe x is true in spite of the silence; in the latter I believe x is true because of the silence (that is why it is called an "argument from silence"). I have not used either the latter or the former; but you have. I have matched the form of your argument precisely to the form of the fallacy "Argumentum ex Silentio," and you repeated it just now. You use the silence (the non-y, or the non-evidence) as your evidence for your position.

Finally, I plan to show that Saintly Interscession is in fact from the Apostles themselves. I've already shown that it is apostolic teaching that the Saints in Heaven are still members of the Church, and that in under six pages of posts! We mustn't rest on our laurels now; here are more questions for you:

"Can all members of the Body of Christ be called 'saints?"
"Is Stephan in Heaven?"

I also regret to inform you that there is a good chance that I won't be able to respond for about a week or so.

 

[Standing Up]

No, I am certainly not saying that there is a difference between the Body on Earth and in Heaven. I'm only saying that obedience to doctrine - in the way you've phrased it - makes since only in the case of a person who is currently on Earth.

Obedience to the Law of God is the same way. Yes, theoretically a person in Heaven - being a person with free will - can choose to sin. If the person in Heaven chose to sin, then that person would lose the State of Grace that we call Heaven. In that regard, there is no difference between being a member of the Church on Earth, or in Heaven; the just consequences would be the same. But, because the soul of the Christian in Heaven is fundamentally changed (sanctified), it is no longer practically possible for the Christian to sin. I never said that the method or experience of living is the same in Heaven as on Earth - you tried to insert that premise into my argument, and I explicitly denied it.

And the Body in purgatory or even hell (per the link)?

Well, the same thing applies in this case. Yes, theoretically, a person in heaven could reject the truth about something, but that is a practically impossible occurance since the intellect and will have been so fundamentally changed. There is no difference in regards to the necessity of obedience, but law is only meaningful if there is the practical possiblility that it could be ignored. Hence, law and doctrine is formulated for those members of the Church on Earth; it is experienced by the Blessed in Heaven - though it still applies to both. Your alternative is to say that the Blessed in Heaven can have a false belief, or refuse their assent to the truth.

As for the smoke-screen that you're trying to put up about Morman baptism, I'll simply point out that the Church has always been clear, long before eleven years ago, that the Trinitarian formula must be used, or the Baptism is invalid. The Church eventually made a public statement about Morman baptism, but she also did not recognize it before that time.

Different subject, but I assumed you knew the assertions that Rome allowed baptisms of Marcion, Samosota, and others. Thought it recent, less offenive than Marion stuff.

I'll just reiterate the question above.

A simple yes or no was not possible, because the question was fundamentally flawed; it did not take into account the different mode of responding to God's law and to the truth. A simple yes would mean that there was a practical possibility that the Blessed in Heaven could reject the truth which they now experience in its fullness. A simple no would mean that there really are two bodies of Christ.

It is the same problem as the question: "Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" The problem cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because the question is flawed; if God is infinitely-powerful, than it makes no sense to talk about something "more powerful than something infinitely-powerful." But that would take more than a yes or no to explain.

SU: "My question is since you believe the Body on earth is the same as the Body in heaven, when your Body on earth declared others of the Body excommunicated when they don't believe as your Body, does that apply to your Body in heaven or purgatory? Simple yes or no. Then we can move on. "

So, a new de fide does not apply to those in purgatory or heaven? (Obviously they "got there" without it.)

Oh I'm sure we disagree with the definition in all its particulars, but this is a starting point. By saying "there is one Body, the Church," I assume you do mean that the "Body of Christ" and "the Church" are one and the same - therefore predicate-nominatives. This means that we have now agreed to a new Axiom 5: "The Body of Christ is the Church." We have also now fully agreed to all the premises needed to say that the Saints in Heaven are still members of the Church.

The reasoning is that, combining axioms 1-3, a Christian who has died remains an alive, individualized member of the Body of Christ. This Body in Heaven is the same as the Body on Earth (Ax 4), and since all Christians are members of this one Body of Christ, and the one Body is also the Church; it follows that the Christian who is in Heaven is still a member of the Church. This rectifies the Sanctus of the Mass, and the priest's prologue to that prayer (I've already gone over that).



Don't you realize that you've just repeated your own fallacy? When you say "the apostles could or should have said something [in the Gospels or epistles]," (this is y) you are saying that that is something that is sufficient to prove that Saintly Intercession is true (x). But, you say, "they didn't" (this is non-y). Then, you say, that this then means that x is false - without considering whether evidence z might also be sufficient to prove x.

In order for me to use an argumentum ex silentio, I would have to use the silence as my evidence. You aren't accusing me of argumentum ex silentio, and I will prove it. You are accusing me of saying something like this: I believe that Saintly Intercession is true. There is not a direct statement from Peter or Paul etc in the Scriptures that commands Saintly Intercession; therefore, Saintly Intercession is true." But this is not an argumentum ex silentio, because I am not using the "silence" as evidence; I am believing that Saintly Intercession is true in spite of the silence in the matter. What you are accusing me of is a Non Sequitur - a "it does not follow." And if I argued like that then yes, I would be guilty of a non-sequitur. But I am not guilty of that, because you do not yet know all the premises of my argument, and a non sequitur is only possible in the case of a completed argument - and I have never yet reached my conclusion. In fact, so far on every one of my conclusions that I have actually reached, either you or Zazal have agreed with me.

In order for me to use an argumentum ex silentio, I would need to use the silence as my evidence that my position is true. I would have to say "I believe that Saintly Intercession is true. There is no statement from Peter, Paul, et cetera condemning Saintly Intercession; therefore, Saintly Intercession is true." See the difference between this case and what you are actually accusing me of? In the first case, I believe x is true in spite of the silence; in the latter I believe x is true because of the silence (that is why it is called an "argument from silence"). I have not used either the latter or the former; but you have. I have matched the form of your argument precisely to the form of the fallacy "Argumentum ex Silentio," and you repeated it just now. You use the silence (the non-y, or the non-evidence) as your evidence for your position.

Finally, I plan to show that Saintly Interscession is in fact from the Apostles themselves. I've already shown that it is apostolic teaching that the Saints in Heaven are still members of the Church, and that in under six pages of posts! We mustn't rest on our laurels now; here are more questions for you:

"Can all members of the Body of Christ be called 'saints?"
"Is Stephan in Heaven?"

I also regret to inform you that there is a good chance that I won't be able to respond for about a week or so.

Good to pause here anyway. We're going in circles.

 

[Rhamiel]

wow these are some really long posts that i am not going to read
sorry

 

[Standing Up]

wow these are some really long posts that i am not going to read
sorry

especially since they're saying the same thing over again

although I did read your link. he seems to think those in hell are 'capable' of getting out? did I get that right?

 

[Rhamiel]

especially since they're saying the same thing over again

although I did read your link. he seems to think those in hell are 'capable' of getting out? did I get that right?

no no no
it was pretty much saying "you are getting kicked out of the Church and we are going to have nothing to do with you, if you do not want to go to hell you best repent"
all excommunication is a call to repentance

 

[Standing Up]

no no no
it was pretty much saying "you are getting kicked out of the Church and we are going to have nothing to do with you, if you do not want to go to hell you best repent"
all excommunication is a call to repentance

So, how would you answer the question about an earthly "new" doctrine's impact on those in heaven or purgatory? For example, the de fide about 4 Marian dogmas in the 19th century, with this new requirements, did it change anything for those deceased in purgatory or heaven? Clearly they were there before, so obviously it's not important. But what do you say?

 

[Rhamiel]

So, how would you answer the question about an earthly "new" doctrine's impact on those in heaven or purgatory? For example, the de fide about 4 Marian dogmas in the 19th century, with this new requirements, did it change anything for those deceased in purgatory or heaven? Clearly they were there before, so obviously it's not important. But what do you say?

first Corinthians 13:12
We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

I believe that those in Purgatory have much much more understanding of spiritual things then we do, we are fooled by worldly things but the souls in Purgatory are just souls, just spirits, spirits who are being are in frienship with Christ and who are being made pure by His grace
they understood the truths of these dogmas far better then we understand them now
as soon as they entered Heaven they were in a communuin with the Lord that we can not even understand
1 Corinthians 2:9
But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him

 

[judechild]

I've told an unintentional falsehood (not a lie, because I didn't intend to tell a falsehood). That falsehood is, of course, that I'd be gone for a while. To no doubt what is your heart's greatest pleasure; I'm back! I really will be gone for quite some time starting tomorrow, though.

And the Body in purgatory or even hell (per the link)?

This question has no object. "And the Body in Purgatory or even hell" - what? I'll speculate that you mean "is there an effect from a Papal declaration of dogma or doctrine that applies to those members of the Church in Purgatory or in Hell?" The second subject in that - members of the Church in Hell - has no meaning because by our agreed-upon definitions, that would mean that there are members of the Body of Christ in Hell. But Hell is to separated from the Body of Christ. And so there is no person who is in "the Body... [in] hell."

In Purgatory, the same applies as to the person in Heaven. The person in Purgatory could, theoretically, choose to withhold assent to the truth, but that would be a character of mortal sin; thereby theoretically losing the grace of Heaven. But the souls in Purgatory have already been substantially changed and are progressing toward full sanctification, and so it is a practical impossibility.

I'll just reiterate the question above.

That is unnecessary, since I have already answered it fully.

I've already explained to you that a simple yes or no would be problematic for your own theology as well, and so I've taken the liberty for our mutual benefit of showing that the question is flawed. If you want to make progress, don't stagnate; instead, show why you think my own analysis is flawed.

So, a new de fide does not apply to those in purgatory or heaven? (Obviously they "got there" without it.)

I have already explained this. In the first place, singling out certain Marian doctrines is only for rhetorical effect; the same principle applies for all doctrine - whether Mary's Theotokas, or Christ's 'Consubstantialum cum patrum.' It is missing the point of a declaration of doctrine to say that "well, there have been some who've gotten to Heaven without confessing that Christ is 'Consubstantial with the Father,' so it must not be important." That is anti-intellectual, but more important, it ignores that the purpose of doctrine is to assist the faithful to follow God. If Christ is not really and truly God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, then He is a creature and is made a child of God by adoption - the same way as us. This leads to attacking the foundation of Christ's redemptive role (because if He is God's son by adoption only, then is He actually the 'one who came down from Heaven?'

Clearly, the Church in Heaven must accept that Christ is God, and that He is God genitum non factum; rejection of a truth of the Faith would be a rejection of Truth itself - leading to separation from Truth, and therefore Hell. This is a practical impossibility. It would still be a mistake to say that the definition of Christ's co-eternity with the Father is relatively unimportant. So, again, while the Blessed in Heaven do give their assent to all doctrines, they experience it much differently than the members of the Church on Earth. This does not indicate a rupture in the Body of Christ, only a difference in experience.

Good to pause here anyway. We're going in circles.

We are not going in circles; we've made considerable progress. In the first place, we've reached common conclusion on five axioms and a definition; these have led us to the conclusion that the souls in Heaven are still members of the Church. You've also given up your accusations against me of two fallacies (though I still don't give up my own accusation, sorry).

And now, I will repeat the same questions I asked last time. This is not "going in circles;" this is going in a straight line. Any repetition is only an effect of your refusal to answer in the first place. These questions are:

Can all the members of the Body of Christ be called "saints?"
And is Stephan in Heaven?

 

[Standing Up]

I've told an unintentional falsehood (not a lie, because I didn't intend to tell a falsehood). That falsehood is, of course, that I'd be gone for a while. To no doubt what is your heart's greatest pleasure; I'm back! I really will be gone for quite some time starting tomorrow, though.



This question has no object. "And the Body in Purgatory or even hell" - what? I'll speculate that you mean "is there an effect from a Papal declaration of dogma or doctrine that applies to those members of the Church in Purgatory or in Hell?" The second subject in that - members of the Church in Hell - has no meaning because by our agreed-upon definitions, that would mean that there are members of the Body of Christ in Hell. But Hell is to separated from the Body of Christ. And so there is no person who is in "the Body... [in] hell."

In Purgatory, the same applies as to the person in Heaven. The person in Purgatory could, theoretically, choose to withhold assent to the truth, but that would be a character of mortal sin; thereby theoretically losing the grace of Heaven. But the souls in Purgatory have already been substantially changed and are progressing toward full sanctification, and so it is a practical impossibility.

Okay, so the new Marian dogmas of the 19th century have no bearing on those dead in Christ before the de fide statements.

So, in what sense is this the Body/Church?

-snip-
And now, I will repeat the same questions I asked last time. This is not "going in circles;" this is going in a straight line. Any repetition is only an effect of your refusal to answer in the first place. These questions are:

Can all the members of the Body of Christ be called "saints?"
And is Stephan in Heaven?

Well, those are new questions. Are all believers saints? Yes, it appears Stephen is in heaven, unless of course, he rejected the 4 Marion de fide dogmas that came 1900 years later. But, hey, for all the Body on earth knows, the Body in heaven all rejected those de fide arguments as nonsense, not meaningful.

BTW, how about post-fact excommunications? For example, those like EO not in communion with the Bishop of Rome's Unam Sanctum. None of them are in heaven, being not part of the Body. That is what you're saying, right?

 

[Standing Up]

We could reverse the discussion about new doctrinal statements from earth to heaven to from heaven to earth.

There's a vision of Mary known as Lady of All Nations. She wants some new doctrinal statements made about co-mediatrix, etc.

Lady of all Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How would that effect the Body. She already knows the truth , but those on earth are resisting. Let's hope death has ceased until this is cleared up.

Hopefully the point is clear? It's probably why the Body on earth has been not only NOT instructed about the dead, but also warned to have nothing to do with the dead. As for the living, yes pray for each other.

So, supposedly new doctrine from the Body in heaven for the Body on earth. Good luck with that.

 

[judechild]

Judechildus ad Standingea Upea salutem dicit,

I'm back; how've you been? (Did you know that your user-name is very difficult to decline?)

Okay, so the new Marian dogmas of the 19th century have no bearing on those dead in Christ before the de fide statements.

So, in what sense is this the Body/Church?

Really now, this is very puerile. Like I've said twice now, the Marian dogmas - just like Christ's dual nature, the canon of Scripture, and the co-eternal divinity of the Holy Spirit - bear just as much on the Saints in Heaven as they do on us, but it is a practical impossibility that they should reject them because that would be a rejection of the truth, and a rejection of the truth would mean the loss of Heaven. It is the same as laws for morality and ethics; the Saints follow them, but they do not rebel against them; hence it is not necessary to codify them for the Saints in Heaven. (Nota bene: all of this comes, of course, from the perspective of the Catholic Church; id est, if it is true that Christ has two natures - one human and one divine - then it is believed by all in Heaven, and it is practically impossible that they should reject it because that would be a mortal sin).

Consequently, the codification of doctrine is for the Church on Earth, but is also held by the Saints in Heaven. This does not introduce any kind of bifurcation into the Body of Christ; after all, the Church in Heaven doesn't read the Bible either, but that doesn't mean that the Body of Christ is Heaven is different in substance from the Body of Christ on Earth.

Well, those are new questions. Are all believers saints? Yes, it appears Stephen is in heaven, unless of course, he rejected the 4 Marion de fide dogmas that came 1900 years later. But, hey, for all the Body on earth knows, the Body in heaven all rejected those de fide arguments as nonsense, not meaningful.

They were not new questions, they were asked on the 1st of August. I cannot say that all believers are saints, because not all believers are members of the Body of Christ. This is demonstrated in several of Christ's parables; I will post two of them.

The first is the Parable of the Talents, found in Matthew 25:14-30. Strengthened by its placement between the Parable of the Virgins, and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, it describes a servant of the Master who refuses to be profitable with his "talent." The result is that the servant is removed from the house: "the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness" (v. 30).

The second is the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18:23-35. This parable describes a person who was forgiven for his debt (sins), who then failed to forgive another person for his sins. Consequently, the Master revolked the forgiveness that had once been extended: "'thou wicked servant... shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?' / And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers" (vs. 33, 34). This is a sign of the necessity of forgivenness in the life of the believer - or else the believer is not a member of the Body of Christ: "so also shall my heavenly Father do to you..." (v. 35).

I cannot, then, say that every believer is a Saint, but I can say that every member of the Body of Christ is. Do you agree that every member of the Body of Christ can be called a Saint? It really is imperative that you answer this question without equivocation.

As for Stephan, it is good that we agree that he is in Heaven. It would be hard to doubt that, considering he died for Christ; is described as "being full of the Holy Ghost;" (Acts 7:55) dies in a manner similar to Christ's death by saying "'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," and is then declared to "[fall] asleep in the Lord" (v. 58).

BTW, how about post-fact excommunications? For example, those like EO not in communion with the Bishop of Rome's Unam Sanctum. None of them are in heaven, being not part of the Body. That is what you're saying, right?

Have I said that? I have not defined anything about the population of Heaven. For all we know, so far, Stephan is the only member. I will say, though, that "post-facto" excommunication makes no sense, considering there is a particular judgement when each person dies. Ergo, it is a category comparable to your question about the members of the Body of Christ in Hell (i.e., it is not a populated group), so we do not need to consider that.

Here is our progress so far:

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10).
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3).
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39).
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).
Axiom 5: The Body of Christ and the Church are predicate-nominatives (Eph. 1:22-23).

Definition 1: A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ.

Vale!

 

[judechild]

As for the latter post, I refuse to take you seriously until you come up with a better source than Wikipedia.

 

[Standing Up]

As for the latter post, I refuse to take you seriously until you come up with a better source than Wikipedia.

Poor Wiki. Can't get no respect.

Ever hear of Lady of All Nations?

 

[Standing Up]

Judechildus ad Standingea Upea salutem dicit,

I'm back; how've you been? (Did you know that your user-name is very difficult to decline?)



Really now, this is very puerile. Like I've said twice now, the Marian dogmas - just like Christ's dual nature, the canon of Scripture, and the co-eternal divinity of the Holy Spirit - bear just as much on the Saints in Heaven as they do on us, but it is a practical impossibility that they should reject them because that would be a rejection of the truth, and a rejection of the truth would mean the loss of Heaven. It is the same as laws for morality and ethics; the Saints follow them, but they do not rebel against them; hence it is not necessary to codify them for the Saints in Heaven. (Nota bene: all of this comes, of course, from the perspective of the Catholic Church; id est, if it is true that Christ has two natures - one human and one divine - then it is believed by all in Heaven, and it is practically impossible that they should reject it because that would be a mortal sin).

Consequently, the codification of doctrine is for the Church on Earth, but is also held by the Saints in Heaven. This does not introduce any kind of bifurcation into the Body of Christ; after all, the Church in Heaven doesn't read the Bible either, but that doesn't mean that the Body of Christ is Heaven is different in substance from the Body of Christ on Earth.

But, again, with 4 new dogmas of the 19th century, we have no idea whether those in heaven agree or not.

Or, again, excommunication post fact. For example, they excommunicated those who taught Christ died on the 14th. Stephen certainly thought that, but now what? The Body so-called excommunicated him (not to mention Mary, Peter, Paul, and the others). Has he gone to hell, or is the earthly Body wrong and out of communion with those in heaven?

=snip-
Here is our progress so far:

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10).
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3).
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39).
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).
Axiom 5: The Body of Christ and the Church are predicate-nominatives (Eph. 1:22-23).

Definition 1: A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ.

Vale!

Sorry, no. Are you ready to clarify the new de fide or excommunications or not? Is EO, prior or after, Unam Sanctum, in heaven or not?

We really don't have to pursue this; I've asked the same questions without a clear answer from your POV. Carry on with your axioms wherever they may lead you.