Patron saints

[Rhamiel]

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

we do know that they agree
getting into Heaven is not like passing an SAT test or something
and people are not up in Heaven still arguing about differances in theology

when they entered Heaven, any missunderstanding they might have had was erased by the light of Christ, they did not wait 1700 years to understand the new 4 new dogmas (they were allways doctrines but being elevate to dogma just ment they were explained and defined more clearly)
the saints in heaven do not need top wait for the Church on earth to come to a fuller understanding of doctrines, those in heaven now have a perfect understanding of the Church, because the Church is the body of Christ and they are now joined with Christ in the fullest way that any created being can be united with Christ

 

[judechild]

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

The only way that we cannot know if the Saints in Heaven agree with any point of doctrine is if it is possible to hold a false belief in Heaven. Are you saying that it is possible for a person in Heaven to reject truth?

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?

I'm sorry, my reception must have been bad, which would account for why you didn't hear the first time: "post facto excommunication" is a category that has no population - just like your "Body of Christ in Hell." This is because there is a particular judgement after the death of the individual.

As for your smoke-screen about the 14th day of the moon, no one denied that Christ died on the 14th; the point was that the celebration of Easter should be on a Sunday. If "Good Friday" were celebrated on the 14th every year, it would displace Holy Week; but this is all irrelevant. And you really don't want to go into the dating of the Crucifixion again; last time you tried that with one of the Pope's books was rather embarrassing for you.

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?

I can't answer that, because I don't know (yet). We're getting to that point, but right now it's irrelevent because we're still trying to get the theory down, then we can consider the particulars. In other words, we'll talk about that later (don't worry, I never forget).

And "sorry no," what? We've made more progress here than in any other thread on the matter.

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.

I cannot follow that command until you answer the question "Can every member of the Body of Christ be called a saint?". I can't help thinking that you don't want me to continue with my axioms, for fear of where they may actually lead me. Zazal said in a separate thread that he would be interested how a person would support Saintly intercession using Scripture; that I am doing. It is a slow process, but quite enjoyable.

 

[Standing Up]

we do know that they agree
getting into Heaven is not like passing an SAT test or something
and people are not up in Heaven still arguing about differances in theology

when they entered Heaven, any missunderstanding they might have had was erased by the light of Christ, they did not wait 1700 years to understand the new 4 new dogmas (they were allways doctrines but being elevate to dogma just ment they were explained and defined more clearly)
the saints in heaven do not need top wait for the Church on earth to come to a fuller understanding of doctrines, those in heaven now have a perfect understanding of the Church, because the Church is the body of Christ and they are now joined with Christ in the fullest way that any created being can be united with Christ

Your statement begs the question, how?

To reply that the Pope is infallible is to simply continue begging the question. I understand RC believes such things, but the rest of the Body (if we can still maintain this idea at this point, which we can't of course, given these things are de fide anathemas), doesn't. That much we do know.

The point in all this is it is nigh impossible, unless we believe like Stephen (for example), it is impossible to pray to saints who may or may not believe like we do. We don't know about this Body in heaven, so to pray to it, rather than the one thing we do know, the Head, is inviting more schism.

 

[Standing Up]

The only way that we cannot know if the Saints in Heaven agree with any point of doctrine is if it is possible to hold a false belief in Heaven. Are you saying that it is possible for a person in Heaven to reject truth?

You're still assuming that doctrine on earth is synonomous with doctrine in heaven.

I'm sorry, my reception must have been bad, which would account for why you didn't hear the first time: "post facto excommunication" is a category that has no population - just like your "Body of Christ in Hell." This is because there is a particular judgement after the death of the individual.

As for your smoke-screen about the 14th day of the moon, no one denied that Christ died on the 14th; the point was that the celebration of Easter should be on a Sunday. If "Good Friday" were celebrated on the 14th every year, it would displace Holy Week; but this is all irrelevant. And you really don't want to go into the dating of the Crucifixion again; last time you tried that with one of the Pope's books was rather embarrassing for you.

So, everyone prior to 4 Marian dogmas, Unam Sanctum, and excommunications are still in heaven. Perhaps a different thread, but what was the point of those things? They have zero bearing on the Body, but for schisming it.

I can't answer that, because I don't know (yet). We're getting to that point, but right now it's irrelevent because we're still trying to get the theory down, then we can consider the particulars. In other words, we'll talk about that later (don't worry, I never forget).

And "sorry no," what? We've made more progress here than in any other thread on the matter.



I cannot follow that command until you answer the question "Can every member of the Body of Christ be called a saint?". I can't help thinking that you don't want me to continue with my axioms, for fear of where they may actually lead me. Zazal said in a separate thread that he would be interested how a person would support Saintly intercession using Scripture; that I am doing. It is a slow process, but quite enjoyable.

Until you define the Body IN HEAVEN, you can't get to that idea.

BUT, we DO KNOW, as Saints in the Body on earth (although even here, we really do not have unity, given the aforementioned definitions and excommunications), we are called to pray for one another.

PS. Rome taught Christ died on the 15th Friday, so no, everyone does not know and agree the Lord died on the 14th.

 

[Standing Up]

From the last two exchanges, it looks like RC will maintain their practice of invoking those in heaven simply because they believe in the practice.

PS. As regards Stephen and the Marian dogmas, Stephen would have known Jesus had brothers and sisters from Joseph/Mary, given scripture and very early tradition. So, like other issues, still not sure how the Body here and there would have the same theologies. Since God can look ahead in time, perhaps this is why the apostles (per the Spirit) never taught the practice of invoking the deceased in Christ.

 

[judechild]

You're still assuming that doctrine on earth is synonomous with doctrine in heaven.

Well of course I am. You asked for a Catholic perspective; that would of course assume that I believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church to be true. So, when you ask me if the Saints in Heaven believe all the doctrines it shouldn't surprise you that I'd say yes. You are, after all, trying to find a hole in the thinking of the Catholic Church, right? If this is your only objection then you're saying that the thinking of the Catholic Church is consistent.

So, everyone prior to 4 Marian dogmas, Unam Sanctum, and excommunications are still in heaven. Perhaps a different thread, but what was the point of those things? They have zero bearing on the Body, but for schisming it.

Like I said back in post 54, doctrines are there to help people to follow God. If it wasn't for your addiction to rhetorical devices, you would expand "4 Marian dogmas" to "any dogma," and ask the same question of Christ's daul nature as you do of the "4 Marian dogmas." After all, why not live and let live? If you believe Christ has only one nature, and I believe Christ has two natures, why don't we just agree to disagree? That is a very bad way to look at doctrine. Just look at Mary as Theokokas. It is impossible for me to say "Mary is the Mother of God, but Jesus is not God." On the other hand, there are a growing number of Protestant Churches that are denying the full divinity of Christ. The definition of dogma prevents sliding into false beliefs. And also, we just like truth.

Until you define the Body IN HEAVEN, you can't get to that idea.

This coming from the person who has no valid argument against Saintly intercession. But, if you insist...

The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision.

Do you agree with this definition?

BUT, we DO KNOW, as Saints in the Body on earth (although even here, we really do not have unity, given the aforementioned definitions and excommunications), we are called to pray for one another.

Is that an affirmative answer to my question "can all members of the Body of Christ be called Saints?"

PS. Rome taught Christ died on the 15th Friday, so no, everyone does not know and agree the Lord died on the 14th.

I'm sure you've got some obscure document that you've half-read that you think supports that. Don't bother posting it; it's not relevant. We'll probably have another discussion on it some time in the future.

 

[Standing Up]

Well of course I am. You asked for a Catholic perspective; that would of course assume that I believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church to be true. So, when you ask me if the Saints in Heaven believe all the doctrines it shouldn't surprise you that I'd say yes. You are, after all, trying to find a hole in the thinking of the Catholic Church, right? If this is your only objection then you're saying that the thinking of the Catholic Church is consistent.

You are right I did ask "per RC". A couple posts later, I switched to Christian POV.

Either way, as I just posted above #65, RC will believe what RC wants. This is why I keep suggesting you pursue your axioms. RC axioms for RC POV. If you want to pursue this other line of thinking, then let me know.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-Just look at Mary as Theokokas. It is impossible for me to say "Mary is the Mother of God, but Jesus is not God." On the other hand, there are a growing number of Protestant Churches that are denying the full divinity of Christ. The definition of dogma prevents sliding into false beliefs. And also, we just like truth.-snip-

They used to argue about this. The Roman idea of ever-virgin was promoting anti-christ (no normal flesh birth). No doubt things go around and around.

 

[Rhamiel]

So, everyone prior to 4 Marian dogmas, Unam Sanctum, and excommunications are still in heaven. Perhaps a different thread, but what was the point of those things? They have zero bearing on the Body, but for schisming it.

The Pope does not sit around and say "hmmm what can I make up today that will get people fighting"
the elevation of some teachings into Dogmas come after ancient doctrines get questioned and attacked, most of the doctrines of the Church are not raised to a dogma because a dogma is a very exact definition and most of the teachings of the Church are a little more fluid
like each Bible verse has dozens and dozens of meanings, so you can not really have a Dogma that limets Scripture to one narrow definition

I am getting off track
the point is these Dogmas came into being because there were allready schism and fighting, this was ment to bring unity and end the fighting, clearing up the problem once and for all

 

[judechild]

You are right I did ask "per RC". A couple posts later, I switched to Christian POV.

You said "But, again, with 4 new dogmas of the 19th century, we have no idea whether those in heaven agree or not." But of course the Catholic Church believes that those doctrines are true, and so I said it would be impossible for a saint to reject them just as much as it would be impossible for a saint to murder someone: "The only way that we cannot know if the Saints in Heaven agree with any point of doctrine is if it is possible to hold a false belief in Heaven. Are you saying that it is possible for a person in Heaven to reject truth?"

Your question was senseless if you were not expecting me to answer as a Catholic. And so, if you are going to say that my crime is that I don't think as you do, I will take that as a compliment. I do not have the space or the time to show you why I believe in the authority of the Church to define doctrine, but considering that I do you haven't yet mounted a reason against my saying that the Saints cannot disbelieve a dogma of faith.

Either way, as I just posted above #65, RC will believe what RC wants. This is why I keep suggesting you pursue your axioms. RC axioms for RC POV. If you want to pursue this other line of thinking, then let me know.

You've agreed with every one of those axioms; would you like me to re-post your assent to them? They are not "Roman Catholic axioms" any more than "God exists" is a Roman Catholic axiom. I'm having to go through the thought-process very slowly for your benefit, not for my own, and I've given you plently of opportunities to say which of the axioms you disagree with - but you've denied that you do. As for pursuing other lines of thinking, you've had ample time. Instead of pursuing the issue, though, you've tried to sideline us onto every possible issue, except for Saintly intercession. You've tried to red herring us onto Unam Sanctum, the virginity of Mary, the Quartodecimians, ficticious "post-facto excommunications," some random Wikipedia post, et cetera.

You are right, though, the Catholic Church will continue to believe what she does - long after God Himself has been reduced solely to a "Roman Catholic axiom."

And now, be a good sport and answer this for me: can every member of the Body of Christ be called a saint? This discussion will stagnate for as long as you refuse to answer that question.

They used to argue about this. The Roman idea of ever-virgin was promoting anti-christ (no normal flesh birth). No doubt things go around and around.

I will again refuse to take your red-herring, but I will point out that the idea of Mary as ever-virgin is not what the Theotokas means. It also was not used to say that Christ had no humanity, as it was the formulation that was used against Nestorius.

 

[Standing Up]

You said "But, again, with 4 new dogmas of the 19th century, we have no idea whether those in heaven agree or not." But of course the Catholic Church believes that those doctrines are true, and so I said it would be impossible for a saint to reject them just as much as it would be impossible for a saint to murder someone: "The only way that we cannot know if the Saints in Heaven agree with any point of doctrine is if it is possible to hold a false belief in Heaven. Are you saying that it is possible for a person in Heaven to reject truth?"

We're going in circles, but we're now agreeing. You're giving the RC POV. My question was about the Christian POV. Now, this is NOT a comment on anyone's religion. It is merely to comment on the issue----as you said, and I agree, you are giving the RC POV. BUT obviously, there's a problem as soon as we start talking about the rest of the Body, be it Protestants or EO or mere Christians.

Your question was senseless if you were not expecting me to answer as a Catholic. And so, if you are going to say that my crime is that I don't think as you do, I will take that as a compliment. I do not have the space or the time to show you why I believe in the authority of the Church to define doctrine, but considering that I do you haven't yet mounted a reason against my saying that the Saints cannot disbelieve a dogma of faith.

Again, let me make the distinction that you keep beggin---there's the RC POV and the Christian POV. So, of course, you may believe your RC dogma of faith as given on earth will be what you believe is RCers in heaven.

Is that obvious yet?

You've agreed with every one of those axioms; would you like me to re-post your assent to them? They are not "Roman Catholic axioms" any more than "God exists" is a Roman Catholic axiom. I'm having to go through the thought-process very slowly for your benefit, not for my own, and I've given you plently of opportunities to say which of the axioms you disagree with - but you've denied that you do. As for pursuing other lines of thinking, you've had ample time. Instead of pursuing the issue, though, you've tried to sideline us onto every possible issue, except for Saintly intercession. You've tried to red herring us onto Unam Sanctum, the virginity of Mary, the Quartodecimians, ficticious "post-facto excommunications," some random Wikipedia post, et cetera.

You are right, though, the Catholic Church will continue to believe what she does - long after God Himself has been reduced solely to a "Roman Catholic axiom."

And now, be a good sport and answer this for me: can every member of the Body of Christ be called a saint? This discussion will stagnate for as long as you refuse to answer that question.



I will again refuse to take your red-herring, but I will point out that the idea of Mary as ever-virgin is not what the Theotokas means. It also was not used to say that Christ had no humanity, as it was the formulation that was used against Nestorius.

The conversation stagnated once it became clear you refused to move off of the RC POV.

Whatever you say about the issue is the RC POV, so of course, you're going to believe your RC POV. For others, this just keeps begging the question.

Again, for the third or fourth time, continue to build your RC axioms. If I may suggest, you should maybe do this in OBOB. There you will find much support for your axioms.

 

[Standing Up]

The Pope does not sit around and say "hmmm what can I make up today that will get people fighting"
the elevation of some teachings into Dogmas come after ancient doctrines get questioned and attacked, most of the doctrines of the Church are not raised to a dogma because a dogma is a very exact definition and most of the teachings of the Church are a little more fluid
like each Bible verse has dozens and dozens of meanings, so you can not really have a Dogma that limets Scripture to one narrow definition

I am getting off track
the point is these Dogmas came into being because there were allready schism and fighting, this was ment to bring unity and end the fighting, clearing up the problem once and for all

I have no doubt much thought has been put into many of the things many of the Popes and magesterium has said.

Obviously, if the intent was to "bring unity and end the fighting", they have failed.

Anyway, I think it very clear that this issue is simply RC asserting what RC believes, rather than examing what the Body believes (AND AGAIN, this is not a comment on religion, but is simply to point out the obvious distinction on the isse. Obviously parts of the Body DO NOT believe praying to the saints is healthy or necessary or allowed. Parts do. To converse about it, it might help to hear each other, rather than simply reiterate, well this is the RC POV. Duh, we got that.)

 

[judechild]

We're going in circles, but we're now agreeing. You're giving the RC POV. My question was about the Christian POV. Now, this is NOT a comment on anyone's religion. It is merely to comment on the issue----as you said, and I agree, you are giving the RC POV. BUT obviously, there's a problem as soon as we start talking about the rest of the Body, be it Protestants or EO or mere Christians.

No, you're not understanding me. It is clear that I have a different view of the Church than you do, but we knew that going in; and your distinction between the "Catholic" point of view and the "Christian" point of view is arbitrary because your ecclesiology is not more "basic" than mine is. You might as well talk about the "deist" point of view and the "theist" point of view; one is not more basic of the other, and the terms are too broad to be broad-swept like that anyway.

My point in bringing up that I answered as a Catholic would is first of all that your questions regarding the Church's understanding of the knowledge of the Saints are not related to the Ultimate Question. We are trying to establish points on the Intercession of the Saints; you left that trail to go off on whether the doctrines of the Church are in fact true. But that doesn't matter to the discussion. This is because, whether you like it or not, you have agreed to five axiomatic statements and a definition. Causa disputandi, it may be that every other thing the Church says is wrong, but it won't change the truth-value of the five statements that we've agreed to (at least, it won't directly affect them). On the other hand, when you started fishing for something - anything - that you could find to throw at the Church, you were doing it from the perspective of "and how does the Catholic Church respond to this?" Itaque, I followed your questioning, and gave you responses as a Catholic would and should respond. That does not mean that I'm bifurcating the "Roman Catholic" point-of-view from any other; it simply means I'm doing what I'd hope you're doing.

Again, let me make the distinction that you keep beggin---there's the RC POV and the Christian POV. So, of course, you may believe your RC dogma of faith as given on earth will be what you believe is RCers in heaven.

Yes, thank you; I will do that. But that doesn't strike a bifurcation between the "Catholic point-of-view" and the "Christian point-of-view." After all, while I believe that it is wholly appropriate and true that you said that you, yourself, have "no idea" what the Saints in Heaven actually believe (post 60), it would be cutting everybody short (including you) if we didn't believe that our beliefs were true - and hence that they would be known to be true by those who no longer "walk by faith."

The conversation stagnated once it became clear you refused to move off of the RC POV.

Does that mean that it is only the Catholic point-of-view that all members of the Body of Christ can be called saints?

Whatever you say about the issue is the RC POV, so of course, you're going to believe your RC POV. For others, this just keeps begging the question.

Oh, are you going to enlighten me on logic again? Well certainly, let's see your justification for it:

In order to validly accuse me of begging the question, you will have to show that I have used the assumption that the conclusion is true. It looks like this: x supports y, because y is true." Concretely, it looks like this: "Nobody should ever shop at Walmart. This is because it is immoral to shop at Walmart."

Again, for the third or fourth time, continue to build your RC axioms. If I may suggest, you should maybe do this in OBOB. There you will find much support for your axioms.

I have support from you for all of my axioms so far admitted. If, though, you are implying that you do not support the statement "all members of the Body of Christ can be called saints," then yes, I do believe I can find support in OBOB for that.

And as for this nonsense about me refusing to move off the "Catholic point-of-view," I'd like to point out that I answer your questions about six times faster than you answer mine, but you don't do anything with them. For example, in post 64 you thought it was so important that I define what the Church in Heaven is that you put parts of it in caps: "Until you define the Body IN HEAVEN, you can't get to that idea." Well, I obeyed. I defined the Body IN HEAVEN in post 66: "The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision;" I then asked if you agreed, but you ignored it and this is the only time it's come up again. Is it just the "Catholic point-of-view" that Heaven exists at all? Do not accuse me of stagnating the discussion when you do not stick to a topic or continue strains of thought; it is not me that has stuck in my own "point-of-view".

Now, for the fifth or sixth time, can all members of the Body of Christ be called saints (Eph 1:1, Phi 1:1, et cetera)? If it be only the Catholic point-of-view that it is, so be it - but oh how my heart races with suspense to see if the "Christian point-of-view" agrees.

 

[Standing Up]

No, you're not understanding me. It is clear that I have a different view of the Church than you do, but we knew that going in; and your distinction between the "Catholic" point of view and the "Christian" point of view is arbitrary because your ecclesiology is not more "basic" than mine is. You might as well talk about the "deist" point of view and the "theist" point of view; one is not more basic of the other, and the terms are too broad to be broad-swept like that anyway.

My point in bringing up that I answered as a Catholic would is first of all that your questions regarding the Church's understanding of the knowledge of the Saints are not related to the Ultimate Question. We are trying to establish points on the Intercession of the Saints; you left that trail to go off on whether the doctrines of the Church are in fact true. But that doesn't matter to the discussion. This is because, whether you like it or not, you have agreed to five axiomatic statements and a definition. Causa disputandi, it may be that every other thing the Church says is wrong, but it won't change the truth-value of the five statements that we've agreed to (at least, it won't directly affect them). On the other hand, when you started fishing for something - anything - that you could find to throw at the Church, you were doing it from the perspective of "and how does the Catholic Church respond to this?" Itaque, I followed your questioning, and gave you responses as a Catholic would and should respond. That does not mean that I'm bifurcating the "Roman Catholic" point-of-view from any other; it simply means I'm doing what I'd hope you're doing.



Yes, thank you; I will do that. But that doesn't strike a bifurcation between the "Catholic point-of-view" and the "Christian point-of-view." After all, while I believe that it is wholly appropriate and true that you said that you, yourself, have "no idea" what the Saints in Heaven actually believe (post 60), it would be cutting everybody short (including you) if we didn't believe that our beliefs were true - and hence that they would be known to be true by those who no longer "walk by faith."



Does that mean that it is only the Catholic point-of-view that all members of the Body of Christ can be called saints?



Oh, are you going to enlighten me on logic again? Well certainly, let's see your justification for it:

In order to validly accuse me of begging the question, you will have to show that I have used the assumption that the conclusion is true. It looks like this: x supports y, because y is true." Concretely, it looks like this: "Nobody should ever shop at Walmart. This is because it is immoral to shop at Walmart."



I have support from you for all of my axioms so far admitted. If, though, you are implying that you do not support the statement "all members of the Body of Christ can be called saints," then yes, I do believe I can find support in OBOB for that.

And as for this nonsense about me refusing to move off the "Catholic point-of-view," I'd like to point out that I answer your questions about six times faster than you answer mine, but you don't do anything with them. For example, in post 64 you thought it was so important that I define what the Church in Heaven is that you put parts of it in caps: "Until you define the Body IN HEAVEN, you can't get to that idea." Well, I obeyed. I defined the Body IN HEAVEN in post 66: "The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision;" I then asked if you agreed, but you ignored it and this is the only time it's come up again. Is it just the "Catholic point-of-view" that Heaven exists at all? Do not accuse me of stagnating the discussion when you do not stick to a topic or continue strains of thought; it is not me that has stuck in my own "point-of-view".

Now, for the fifth or sixth time, can all members of the Body of Christ be called saints (Eph 1:1, Phi 1:1, et cetera)? If it be only the Catholic point-of-view that it is, so be it - but oh how my heart races with suspense to see if the "Christian point-of-view" agrees.

No, we didn't. Here are your axioms:

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death.
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body.

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

We started with the idea of Christian (P, EO, RC). But since I've brought up what about the rest of us or dogma from heaven or disagreement on earth or post excommunications, you've redefined Christian to mean RC. IOW, had you maintained the commone understanding of Christian to include P, EO, RC, then the issues I've raised are still unanswered. You may think you've addressed them, but all you've done is redefine all your axioms from Christian to mean RC.

Axiom 1: Those RC who have died remain alive in RC.
Axiom 2: The same RC remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same RC are not separated from RC after death.
Axiom 4: The RC is one, unified body.

Definition 1: A RC is one who remains in the RC.

I understand your frustration, but that's all it says. We already know you believe this, but so what?

 

[judechild]

No, we didn't. Here are your axioms:

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death.
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body.

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

We started with the idea of Christian (P, EO, RC). But since I've brought up what about the rest of us or dogma from heaven or disagreement on earth or post excommunications, you've redefined Christian to mean RC. IOW, had you maintained the commone understanding of Christian to include P, EO, RC, then the issues I've raised are still unanswered. You may think you've addressed them, but all you've done is redefine all your axioms from Christian to mean RC.

This is something unique. I have never before been accused of not answering something "the issues I've raised are still unanswered," and had that used to say that I redefined something "all you've done is redefine all your axioms from Christian to mean RC." But, if they are unanswered, then how are they re-defining? It is another example of argumentum a silentio. You are saying "If Judechild had said that the Orthodox are included in the genus 'Christian,' (x) then he is defining the genus 'Christian' to include non-Catholics (y). But he didn't comment on the matter at all (non-y); therefore, he does not define 'Christian' to include non-Catholics. (x is false)." But that would only be true if you, in fact, are saying that non-Catholics are not "members of the Body of Christ."

Or, more to the point, I specifically denied defining the term "Christian" beyond "a Christian is a person who remains in the body of Christ." This came up in post 42, when I said: "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.'" When you asked me if the Orthodox were included in that I said "I don't know (yet)"; meaning, we haven't looked at that in-depth yet, but we will eventually. All in all, you are again using non-evidence as evidence and not getting anywhere with it.

You also forgot Axiom 5: The Body of Christ and the Church are predicate-nominatives (you agreed in post 41).

I understand your frustration, but that's all it says. We already know you believe this, but so what?

If that is all that it says, then show where I redefined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic." You really are in a very ridiculous situation. All throughout this thread you've made fallacious arguments, bridges to nowhere (e.g. telling me to define "Body in Heaven" and then ignoring it), embarrassed yourself by trying to accuse me of logical fallacies and failing all three times, and now you're baselessly saying that I redefined the one definition that we've agreed to. Well, if the redefinition is there then bake me a pudding, my dear cook, and let's eat it; that's where the proof is.

 

[Standing Up]

This is something unique. I have never before been accused of not answering something "the issues I've raised are still unanswered," and had that used to say that I redefined something "all you've done is redefine all your axioms from Christian to mean RC." But, if they are unanswered, then how are they re-defining? It is another example of argumentum a silentio. You are saying "If Judechild had said that the Orthodox are included in the genus 'Christian,' (x) then he is defining the genus 'Christian' to include non-Catholics (y). But he didn't comment on the matter at all (non-y); therefore, he does not define 'Christian' to include non-Catholics. (x is false)." But that would only be true if you, in fact, are saying that non-Catholics are not "members of the Body of Christ."

Or, more to the point, I specifically denied defining the term "Christian" beyond "a Christian is a person who remains in the body of Christ." This came up in post 42, when I said: "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.'" When you asked me if the Orthodox were included in that I said "I don't know (yet)"; meaning, we haven't looked at that in-depth yet, but we will eventually. All in all, you are again using non-evidence as evidence and not getting anywhere with it.

You also forgot Axiom 5: The Body of Christ and the Church are predicate-nominatives (you agreed in post 41).



If that is all that it says, then show where I redefined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic." You really are in a very ridiculous situation. All throughout this thread you've made fallacious arguments, bridges to nowhere (e.g. telling me to define "Body in Heaven" and then ignoring it), embarrassed yourself by trying to accuse me of logical fallacies and failing all three times, and now you're baselessly saying that I redefined the one definition that we've agreed to. Well, if the redefinition is there then bake me a pudding, my dear cook, and let's eat it; that's where the proof is.

It is frustrating for you, but let's try again.

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death.
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body.

Comment:

Some Christians have posited 4 new de fide dogmas, the belief of which is necessary, some Christians believe, for all Christians to go to, or even stay in, heaven. If, however, a Christian dies, or is dead, without believing them, they go to hell.

Is that right, so far? OR does that comment apply ONLY to RC?

 

[Standing Up]

To reiterate a different idea:


It is frustrating for you, but let's try again.

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death.
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body.

Comment:

Some Christians have excomunicated other Christians from the Body. For example, Stephen observed Passover on the 14th on whatever day of the week it fell. Some 200 years later that practice was forbidden by anathema and excommunication.

Does that comment apply to Christians OR ONLY to RC POV?

 

[Standing Up]

Lastly, to reiterate a different idea:


It is frustrating for you, but let's try again.

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death.
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death.
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body.

Comment:

Some Christians receive doctrinal direction/suggestion from visions of Christians in heaven.

Does that comment apply to all Christians OR ONLY to RC POV?

 

[judechild]

Oh my goodness; you've recited a Litany! I'm very happy, now maybe people will recite Psalm 136 with me without feeling squeemish.

Comment:

Some Christians have posited 4 new de fide dogmas, the belief of which is necessary, some Christians believe, for all Christians to go to, or even stay in, heaven. If, however, a Christian dies, or is dead, without believing them, they go to hell.

Is that right, so far? OR does that comment apply ONLY to RC?

Re-comment:

I've never said that, have I? I've said that the persons in Heaven cannot disbelieve that which is true, and so if any doctrine is true then it follows that the persons in Heaven believe it. You've inserted the part about "necessary, some Christians believe, for all Christians to go to... heaven" just like you inserted the premise "the life of those in Heaven is the same as the life of those on Earth" waaaay back on page 3 into my developing argument (which is still very incomplete). You're still going for rhetorical effect than for truth, otherwise you'd include all doctrine, not just four that you happen to disagree with.

I asked you to show where I redefined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic," or anything other than "a person who is a member of the Body of Christ."

Comment:

Some Christians have excomunicated other Christians from the Body. For example, Stephen observed Passover on the 14th on whatever day of the week it fell. Some 200 years later that practice was forbidden by anathema and excommunication.

Does that comment apply to Christians OR ONLY to RC POV?

Re-comment:

Based on your ability to look at a document and get the point exactly backwards (e.g., Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth on the dating of Easter, or my own example of an argumentum a silentio), I think it is rather forward of you to speak for what Stephan's beliefs were. Especially when Eusebius - the oldest record - says that it is only some churches in the orient that went by the Quartodeciemian way: "However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour" (V.23). Furthermore, Stephan did not observe Passover, because Christ's Resurrection has fulfilled it and brought about something new (remember, that was in the Pope's book too). Finally, the Church did not say that Christ did not die at that time, or that the observance of Easter on the 14th was itself wrong, or that the people who had celebrated Easter on the 14th were impious; only that the Church as a whole should celebrate Easter at the same time - and appropriately on Sunday. We can see this practice of observing Easter on Sunday in action in the fact that the early Church from its first days worshipped on Sunday as the principle day. Since the Church has a highly-developed sense of Sacred Time (whereby events of the past are experienced in some veiled way in the present), it makes sense, then, that every Sunday is a "little Easter."

I'll also point out that Paul is included in the category "Christians have excommunicated others from the body." Some had insisted on circumcision, and Paul says that if they (now) submit to circumcision, they are not a part of the Body of Christ (Gal 5:2-4).

Again, I asked you to show where I had re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic," and you've failed again.

Some Christians receive doctrinal direction/suggestion from visions of Christians in heaven.

Does that comment apply to all Christians OR ONLY to RC POV?

Does this comment apply to all debates OR ONLY to the current one? Unfortunately I must inform you that this line-of-reasoning has no bearing at all on whether I or anyone else define "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only" and so it is irrelevant.

And so it is again my unfortunate duty to inform you that you have failed to show that I have re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic." Now, I think it is very nice of you to be so worried about my "frustration" but really, you're doing me a huge service. I never have to think up examples for fallacies any more; if I need to show someone what a fallacy is you've written my textbook. For instance, this that you have now gone on is what we call a "red herring." You've distracted from the issue by making the thread about me, or about my beliefs; but it is not. It is about whether a person can pray to the Saints for their intercession. All five axioms and the definition that I've given have been agreed to by you, but you must feel threatened by the question "Can every member of the body of Christ be called a saint?" because while you've stauchly refused to answer that, you have been dancing around looking for anything you can to throw at me. Now, since we've had this lovely outing may we return to the task at hand?

So, is this a good definition of the "Body in Heaven" or not?: "The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision."

 

[Standing Up]

SU: Some Christians have posited 4 new de fide dogmas, the belief of which is necessary, some Christians believe, for all Christians to go to, or even stay in, heaven. If, however, a Christian dies, or is dead, without believing them, they go to hell.

Is that right, so far? OR does that comment apply ONLY to RC?

Re-comment:

I've never said that, have I? I've said that the persons in Heaven cannot disbelieve that which is true, and so if any doctrine is true then it follows that the persons in Heaven believe it.

Again, does the comment apply to everyone in the Body or only RC?

IOW, you're still begging the question. No lies in heaven, but are there lies on earth? Do the 4 de fide dogmas apply to every Christian in heaven and earth or only to RC?

This is getting tedious. Just answer the question with a simple yes or no.

If the answer is yes those de fide dogmas apply only to RC, then yes, you've redefined your axioms from Christian to RC.

If the answer is no those de fide dogmas don't apply to any Christian, then we can proceed.