Patron saints

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
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?

I must be a hawkeye; two arguments down and only one still flying.

Now, I've already answered that - but I'll re-phrase it and make it clearer:

In the first place, I cannot tell if a person goes to hell because of the nature of particular judgement. But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not. Historically, then, the Judaizers, the Arians, and the Nestorians were all called to embrace the doctrines that they opposed. Consequently I can, in the scientific, most non-pergorative sense of the term, call you a heretic because you should believe certain doctrines and you do not. Even with that, though, I cannot say that the person who does not believe them (or even in Christ Himself) at the time of their death is in hell.

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?

You use the terminology of fallacies, but your accusations only fire blanks. Once again, if you have substance to your claim that I beg the question on any issue, then "take courage; be a man" (1 Kings 2:2) and show it.

As for "are there lies on earth?" do I really need to answer that? If you're saying "are there lies in the Church's doctrine" then the answer cannot be yes, but of course there are lies and also unintentional falsehoods on Earth.

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

You see, there is a difference between when I ask you something a second time, and when you do. In the first place, I never have the dryness to say "simple yes or no." "Simple yes or no" is boring, and besides that it presumptuously assumes that the question is non-compound. Most of your questions are compound, necessitating a more elaborate response. For instance, in your surviving question, you are really asking "'can you know who goes to hell?' 'Is belief in all dogmas necessary for salvation?' and 'Do "some Christians" have the authority to bind new dogmas?'" This means that it is far too complicated for a "simple yes or no."

And don't talk to me about tedious; you've persisted in this red herring and are totally non-responsive to my questions. That is what is tedious.

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.

I can't believe it... you've misunderstood your own question. You asked me for a "simple yes or no"; well, a simple "yes" or "no" to the question "Do the 4 de fide dogmas apply to every Christian in heaven and earth or only to RC?" would be meaningless.

And you've missed the option that "they do 'apply' to all Christians." It's still not a commentary on whether or not the person who does not believe them is a member of the Body of Christ, and for that I could point to the Docetists, or several other sects.

And would it hurt you to not use that ridiculous short-hand "RC?" Everytime you do it, I think of Royal Crown Cola and have a harder time taking you seriously.

And furthermore, since I've been so nice in answering your questions, maybe you'll be so kind as to answer mine now too? Just for fun, I went back and tallied; I've answered 21 of your questions, and you've answered... 2. So, if you please; is there anything wrong with this definition of "the Body in Heaven?": 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."

Finally, since you've been complaining a lot about me going into the "Catholic point-of-view," I'd like to poit out that it is you that is framing this discussion within the bounds of "the Catholic point-of-view." None of the five axioms (which, despite your effort to erase, there are five, not four) have you actually disagreed with, as they were written. When you started this red herring you are the one who abandoned the general in favor of the particular and framed the debate in terms of what I believe, rather than what is generally agreed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think they apply to every Christian

Clearly said. So, what would this mean?

For example, I think we can all agree that Stephen or Jude (brother of the Lord, son of Joseph/Mary) had never heard the 4 de fide Marian dogmas (correction of my sloppiness- spread from 431ad to 1950ad).

So, Jude, some evidently believe, is now banished from heaven. But, some probably still ask him for prayer. He's not in the Body, according to some, anymore. Oops, sorry folks, is about the best that can be said.

How much better, more healthy can we say, to do as the apostles taught. Ask your known brothers and sisters alive in the Lord on earth to pray for us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I must be a hawkeye; two arguments down and only one still flying.

No, they're still up there out of range, as I just try to narrow it down, so we can move on.

Now, I've already answered that - but I'll re-phrase it and make it clearer:

In the first place, I cannot tell if a person goes to hell because of the nature of particular judgement. But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not.

This means, again, you're attempting to redefine Christian to solely mean RC dogmas. Again, what of EO who rejects RC? Again, what of P who also reject numerous things RC? These are Christians in the Body up until 1950ad with the latest RC de fide dogma. Only RC agrees to it. Add in Unam Sanctum, infaliblity, aok of LDS baptism until 11 years ago, etc, etc, etc, and clearly, you've redefined what a Christian is into what RC thinks.

You may protest, of course, as you did, but so what? We both know it, as do any readers of the thread who might be plodding along with us.

Let's stop here and see if we can agree.

Belief 1: Any dogma by RC is applicable to all RC.

-OR- We could make this really easy for you and then we can move on.

Belief 11: Any dogma by RC is not applicable to all Christians.

Do we agree? Which one do you choose?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-snip-
And furthermore, since I've been so nice in answering your questions, maybe you'll be so kind as to answer mine now too? Just for fun, I went back and tallied; I've answered 21 of your questions, and you've answered... 2. So, if you please; is there anything wrong with this definition of "the Body in Heaven?": 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."
-snip-

Yes, you're splitting the Body. IOW, (I'll switch to you personally because I've no idea now whether this is RC theology or JuCh theology), you're believing a state of the Body in heaven that isn't available for those on earth. We, you seem to think, are on the outside looking in. And to top it off, you're assuming those unperfected-semi-Christians (for want of a better term) on earth can make dogma for those perfected-Christians in heaven.

Interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Clearly said. So, what would this mean?

For example, I think we can all agree that Stephen or Jude (brother of the Lord, son of Joseph/Mary) had never heard the 4 de fide Marian dogmas (correction of my sloppiness- spread from 431ad to 1950ad).

So, Jude, some evidently believe, is now banished from heaven. But, some probably still ask him for prayer. He's not in the Body, according to some, anymore. Oops, sorry folks, is about the best that can be said.

How much better, more healthy can we say, to do as the apostles taught. Ask your known brothers and sisters alive in the Lord on earth to pray for us.
St.Jude heard the teachings of Christ from Christ Himself, I think that Jude had a clearer understanding of these dogmas then we do now, I think St.Jude looked down on us in 1950 and said "ahh so they are finally catching up" lol
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
St.Jude heard the teachings of Christ from Christ Himself, I think that Jude had a clearer understanding of these dogmas then we do now, I think St.Jude looked down on us in 1950 and said "ahh so they are finally catching up" lol

You may be right. Sandwich time.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Interesting, so now not only do Catholics and Orthodox who believe in the ever virginity become implicated in Docetism, but also in promoting anti-Christ. Wow.
 
Upvote 0

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
Yes, you're splitting the Body. IOW, (I'll switch to you personally because I've no idea now whether this is RC theology or JuCh theology), you're believing a state of the Body in heaven that isn't available for those on earth. We, you seem to think, are on the outside looking in. And to top it off, you're assuming those unperfected-semi-Christians (for want of a better term) on earth can make dogma for those perfected-Christians in heaven.

You haven't shown how it's splitting the Body of Christ to say "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;" you've only said that it is. And I didn't even touch whether their is hierarchical authority in the Church in this definition. Further, I didn't ask if you think that this definition makes "the Body in heaven" unavailable to those on Earth; I asked if there is anything wrong with it.

But I am glad that you've finally taken the matter up, so now if you can explain why you believe that my definition is splitting the Body of Christ in some way, I'd be glad to read of it.

By the by, if "splitting the Body" means that "the Body in Heaven... isn't available for those on earth," isn't it your own position on the matter that the Body in Heaven is not available to us?

No, they're still up there out of range, as I just try to narrow it down, so we can move on.

If you insist, but hunting with you is just such a bore; the birds are too thin.

This means, again, you're attempting to redefine Christian to solely mean RC dogmas. Again, what of EO who rejects RC? Again, what of P who also reject numerous things RC? These are Christians in the Body up until 1950ad with the latest RC de fide dogma. Only RC agrees to it. Add in Unam Sanctum, infaliblity, aok of LDS baptism until 11 years ago, etc, etc, etc, and clearly, you've redefined what a Christian is into what RC thinks.

You are simply incorrect, and now you are being dishonest. Like I said several times, of course I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth, but that does not mean that I define "Christian" as "Catholic." You've added nothing to your previous comments with this post, except that now you've made statements that are nearly incomprehensible ("these are Christians in the Body up until 1950ad with the latest RC de fide dogma" mean?).

And why don't we just lay this "LDS baptism until 11 years ago" nonsense to rest right now. The document you are refering to is a response from the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, dated 5 June, 2001. It is not a document; it consists of the original question: "Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid," and one word: negative. It does not imply that the Church had recognized Mormon baptism before; it is only a response to a question asked. You have no ground for saying that it was recognized beforehand. The Mormon understanding of Baptism has simply been too far-removed from the Church's understanding of Baptism to be recognized. Mormonism until recently was also a thoroughly American phenomenon, and so a statement from the CDF was unnecessary; it was handled by the bishops of the United States and none of them supported the validity of Mormon baptism.

If you need further evidence in the matter, I can point to a friend of mine who converted to the Catholic Church from Mormonism in 1996; she was baptized at the Easter Vigil.

You may protest, of course, as you did, but so what? We both know it, as do any readers of the thread who might be plodding along with us.

I suppose that what your argument lacks in substance is made up in grandstanding. You have not shown that I re-defined the term "Christian" to mean "Catholic, because you have not shown that I have defined "heretic" as "non-Christian." That would be necessary before you make a categorical statement such as that. As it is, you've only shown that I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth and would like all people to be Catholic.

I can also tell you that you have little sympathy from reasonable people.

Belief 1: Any dogma by RC is applicable to all RC.

-OR- We could make this really easy for you and then we can move on.

Belief 11: Any dogma by RC is not applicable to all Christians.

Do we agree? Which one do you choose?

I told you last post that it is neither. You left out the belief: "dogma in the Catholic Church is 'applicable' to all Christians, whether it is recognized or not." That is of course what I believe, since I believe that it is true; hene, since what is true is "applicable" to all people, it is "applicable" to all Christians.

Again, though, this is all irrelevent, because you agreed to the five axiomatic statements and the definition, and if you'd separate them from your personal war with the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a problem with them still.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I brought up earlier the question of posthumous excommunications. Yep, the Church did believe that.

"
More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things"."
Pope Honorius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, when the Church excommunicated those who believe/practice that Christ died on the 14th, they stretched the anathema's all the way back to you know who.

Simply another problem getting in the way of invoking the deceased.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-snip-
And why don't we just lay this "LDS baptism until 11 years ago" nonsense to rest right now. The document you are refering to is a response from the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, dated 5 June, 2001. It is not a document; it consists of the original question: "Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid," and one word: negative. It does not imply that the Church had recognized Mormon baptism before; it is only a response to a question asked. You have no ground for saying that it was recognized beforehand. The Mormon understanding of Baptism has simply been too far-removed from the Church's understanding of Baptism to be recognized. Mormonism until recently was also a thoroughly American phenomenon, and so a statement from the CDF was unnecessary; it was handled by the bishops of the United States and none of them supported the validity of Mormon baptism.

I invite you to start a new thread on this in GT. Let's find out, shall we?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You haven't shown how it's splitting the Body of Christ to say "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;" you've only said that it is.

Because it still begs the question of who they are. Given the declaration against Honorus 40 years after his death, obviously who you may think is there, isn't.

I'm suggesting that folks rethink what appears obvious. Remember the Church excommunicated all those pre the anathema who taught Christ died on the 14th. That's about everyone (Mary, the apostles, Polycarp, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, and a whole bunch of other saints), but some in Rome (Telesphorous was sympathetic to the view; known martyre).





You are simply incorrect, and now you are being dishonest. Like I said several times, of course I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth, but that does not mean that I define "Christian" as "Catholic."

Except you've yet to work with any other understanding, be it easter, heretical baptism, marian dogma, EO, unam sanctum, posthumous excommunications, etc.

Until you admit this, we just go round and round.





I told you last post that it is neither. You left out the belief: "dogma in the Catholic Church is 'applicable' to all Christians, whether it is recognized or not." That is of course what I believe, since I believe that it is true; hene, since what is true is "applicable" to all people, it is "applicable" to all Christians.

Again, though, this is all irrelevent, because you agreed to the five axiomatic statements and the definition, and if you'd separate them from your personal war with the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a problem with them still.

Ah, so you do agree you're simply giving the RC POV. We know that. What I'm interested in is the Christian POV.

To bring up the point again:

Belief 1: Any dogma/teaching by RC is applicable to all RC.
Belief 2: Any dogma/teaching by RC is applicable to everyone else.

5 pages later, you're simply saying what we all know you believe. Again, so what? It does nothing else.

PS. I again want to offer you this (with Belief 12, given the new info re Honorus), so we can move on ... your call.


Belief 11: Any dogma/teaching by RC is not applicable to any Christian in heaven or earth.
Belief 12: Any and all Council decisions post Acts 15 do not bind any Christian in heaven or earth.

Now, we have one Body with the fulness of faith made up of (at least) EO, P, RC on earth and in heaven. What do you propose?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Interesting, so now not only do Catholics and Orthodox who believe in the ever virginity become implicated in Docetism, but also in promoting anti-Christ. Wow.

This is why we should ignore each other. You make false assumptions. Docetism is anti-christ---it means no flesh, no nativity, no normal birth. (read Tertullian and then start a new thread in GT, so we can gain some understanding on the issue as it existed 1800 years ago)

RC and EO do not promote docetism. Nor do people who teach Joseph/Mary had children (James, etc)
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is why we should ignore each other. You make false assumptions. Docetism is anti-christ---it means no flesh, no nativity, no normal birth. (read Tertullian and then start a new thread in GT, so we can gain some understanding on the issue as it existed 1800 years ago)

RC and EO do not promote docetism. Nor do people who teach Joseph/Mary had children (James, etc)

No, it is not why we should ignore each other. Every time I have said this it was in the form of an interrogative (not rhetorical) QUESTION. You have never made a declarative statement when I have asked as you have done here in the second paragraph.

Thus, I do not see the reason for starting a new thread if you do not think that the RC and EOC promote Docetism or are anti-Christ. Logically, one would not see you needing to bring up the issue, the Protoevangelium of James, and the accompanying associations if this is the case, right?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by Tzaousios
Interesting, so now not only do Catholics and Orthodox who believe in the ever virginity become implicated in Docetism, but also in promoting anti-Christ. Wow.

No, it is not why we should ignore each other. Every time I have said this it was in the form of an interrogative (not rhetorical) QUESTION. You have never made a declarative statement when I have asked as you have done here in the second paragraph.

Don't see a question at all in your comment.

Thus, I do not see the reason for starting a new thread if you do not think that the RC and EOC promote Docetism or are anti-Christ. Logically, one would not see you needing to bring up the issue, the Protoevangelium of James, and the accompanying associations if this is the case, right?

Start a new thread. Last comment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Don't see a question at all in your comment.

Well, what you do not mention is the many other times I have asked it in the form of a question only to get deflection and righteous indignation in return. Interested parties can read my recent posts to see where I have done this. What you cite here is the product of previous deflections because there was nothing else to go by.

Standing Up said:
Start a new thread. Last comment.

No, it does not work that way, since you require simple YES/NO answers from others, yet cannot give a simple YES/NO answer here and let it be. Why do you need more threads to arrive at a conclusion if you do not think that the RC and EOC promote Docetism or is anti-Christ?

Standing Up said:
RC and EO do not promote docetism.

What more is needed here?
 
Upvote 0

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
Because it still begs the question of who they are. Given the declaration against Honorus 40 years after his death, obviously who you may think is there, isn't.

Once again, you've shot at the game with a shotgun and somehow managed to miss everything. In the first place, you should have read the rest of your Wikipedia article, which quotes one of your favorite sources - the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 version: "and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." Notice the words "who died in Catholic communion"? The council did not say that Honorius had been a member of the Church, and was only now outside of her; rather, it is a centure. This is because Honorius did not actually teach monophytism, but he did let it fester. Honorius is not recognized as a Saint, that is true, but this decree was not meant to excommunicate him posthumously.

Secondly, the word "anathema" has been used in different ways. In the exorcism rite, the priest literally says that he "anathema's" the devil. But the devil is of course not a Catholic (after all, do we expell demons by the Father of Demons?) Similarly, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas were "anathema" three years after his death, but it was not a proclaimation against his person, only his work (and, clearly, that has been reconciled). The point in declaring Honorius "anathema" has to do with the externals (e.g., devotion to his relics is then suppressed; his name is not included in the Litany of the Saints). His eternal soul we leave up to God.

I'm suggesting that folks rethink what appears obvious. Remember the Church excommunicated all those pre the anathema who taught Christ died on the 14th. That's about everyone (Mary, the apostles, Polycarp, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, and a whole bunch of other saints), but Rome.

I renew my response from post 79, section 3 - which you did not respond to in any way.

Except you've yet to work with any other understanding, be it easter, heretical baptism, marian dogma, EO, unam sanctum, posthumous excommunications, etc.

Until you admit this, we just go round and round.

No, I've been quite fine with working with common frames-of-reference; that's how I got you to agree with the five axioms. No matter how many times you deny it, you did agree to them, and the definition. Both the Catholic and the non-Catholic-Christian can agree with the statement "The Christian who has died remains in the Body of Christ."

Ah, so you do agree you're simply giving the RC POV. We know that. What I'm interested in is the Christian POV.

To bring up the point again:

Belief 1: Any dogma by RC is applicable to all RC.
Belief 2: Any dogma by RC is applicable to everyone else.

5 pages later, you're simply saying what we all know you believe. Again, so what? It does nothing else.

I do not care what you believe is the "Christian point-of-view." The "Christian point-of-view" does not exist. And by belaboring a point which does not exist you are again stagnating the discussion. The non-Catholic does not think that they "apply" to him, but then neither does the Muslim think that the words of Christ in the Gospels "apply" to him. That does not affect the truth of the matter and so proves nothing. That still doesn't affect whether the non-Catholic is a non-Christian.

I invite you to start a new thread on this in GT. Let's find out, shall we?

By saying this, you are admitting that this topic was irrelevant in the first place. I will not start any new threads; if you thought it was relevant enough to bring it up then defend it now.

And you haven't extrapolated yet on your problems with my definition of the Body in Heaven.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Once again, you've shot at the game with a shotgun and somehow managed to miss everything. In the first place, you should have read the rest of your Wikipedia article, which quotes one of your favorite sources - the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 version: "and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned." Notice the words "who died in Catholic communion"? The council did not say that Honorius had been a member of the Church, and was only now outside of her; rather, it is a centure. This is because Honorius did not actually teach monophytism, but he did let it fester. Honorius is not recognized as a Saint, that is true, but this decree was not meant to excommunicate him posthumously.

Secondly, the word "anathema" has been used in different ways. In the exorcism rite, the priest literally says that he "anathema's" the devil. But the devil is of course not a Catholic (after all, do we expell demons by the Father of Demons?) Similarly, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas were "anathema" three years after his death, but it was not a proclaimation against his person, only his work (and, clearly, that has been reconciled). The point in declaring Honorius "anathema" has to do with the externals (e.g., devotion to his relics is then suppressed; his name is not included in the Litany of the Saints). His eternal soul we leave up to God.

You should have read the next paragraph after the one I quoted. Or did you?

"
More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!" "


The point is, just like the excommunication of those who believed/observed that Christ died on the 14th, the point is the Church posthumously expelled them from the Body. They anathematized, excommunicated, repelled them. They were in heaven, but the Church on earth decided to expel them from the Body in heaven.

What this means, again, is who one on earth is praying to in heaven, may actually NOT BE THERE per their own group choices.

OBVIOUSLY, I do not believe such nonsense. But others believe they have the power, the intent, and excercise it, to expel them.


I renew my response from post 79, section 3 - which you did not respond to in any way.



No, I've been quite fine with working with common frames-of-reference; that's how I got you to agree with the five axioms. No matter how many times you deny it, you did agree to them, and the definition. Both the Catholic and the non-Catholic-Christian can agree with the statement "The Christian who has died remains in the Body of Christ."

My agreement was based on my assumption that you were defining Christian NOT as RC only. Since you do so, I rescind my agreement with you. Don't want any part of the nonsense.


By saying this, you are admitting that this topic was irrelevant in the first place. I will not start any new threads; if you thought it was relevant enough to bring it up then defend it now.

Read the sequence of letters between Firmilian, Cyprian, and Stephen. Stephen was allowing baptisms of Marcion and Samosoto as valid. The rest of the Catholic Church was aghast.

As to the 'tradition of apostles' per Eusebius, the reference is to letters from Alexandria (NOT Rome) to Palestine. Alexandria taught Christ died on the 14th. (See Clement of Alexandria and Peter of Alexandria).

(NewMan99, who recently passed away, you may have seen the thread on it in OBOB, was the one who suggested I find an answer to that little Eusebian comment. I regret not having shared with him the information found a couple years later. May he rest in peace.)

And you haven't extrapolated yet on your problems with my definition of the Body in Heaven.

Your Body in Heaven is missing quite a few people that you think are there, but were excommunicated by your group.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JuCh: "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;"

Given what we know about Honorus and others, the Church (RC) on earth believes it has the power to exclude those already judged and found worthy. They've usurped the power reserved solely to God.

I'm about through here. The stomach can only take so much.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
You should have read the next paragraph after the one I quoted. Or did you?

Yep, I sure did; but I don't change anything in what I said. You're making the mistake of isolating this from the context of the Church's Tradition. I know what the decree reads, but you're misinterpreting it, because there can not possibly be a change in the person's eternal destiny following the particular judgment. Consequently "we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius" refers, like I said, to the externals, such as suppression of the veneration of his relics and preventing him from the title of "Saint." Of course, you would not get this from reading a Wikipedia article, which I understand is one of your favorite ways of doing research.

The point is, just like the excommunication of those who believed/observed that Christ died on the 14th, the point is the Church posthumously expelled them from the Body. They anathematized, excommunicated, repelled them. They were in heaven, but the Church on earth decided to expel them from the Body in heaven.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't you think that it would occur to the Bishops at the Council that, after the particular judgement, the soul of the person has been delived to eternal rest or torment as it is? The anathema is used to say that Honorius is not to be honored in the Church. Honestly, this is like a Creationist who likes to pretend that he knows everything about biology, chemistry, and physics, even though he hasn't studied them.

Your insistance on a simplistic view of "anathema" was contested in my last post. Please stop complaining, and get cracken' on it.

OBVIOUSLY, I do not believe such nonsense. But others believe they have the power, the intent, and excercise it, to expel them.

"Oh ho ho. I, Jenings, do not believe in such nonsense; pinky out, now. Quite."

My agreement was based on my assumption that you were defining Christian NOT as RC only. Since you do so, I rescind my agreement with you. Don't want any part of the nonsense.

No matter how many times you say it, I have not defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." In order to show that I did that, you would have to show that I define "heretic" as "non-Christian." On this thread, I have only ever defined "Christian" as "one who remains in the Body of Christ." Your best attempts to connect me with any other defiition failed dismally; just like your attempts to accuse me of argumentum ex silentio about a week ago.

By the way, does this mean that you do not believe that a Christian who dies remains alive with Christ?

Read the sequence of letters between Firmilian, Cyprian, and Stephen. Stephen was allowing baptisms of Marcion and Samosoto as valid. The rest of the Catholic Church was aghast.

Why should I read these letters? You haven't read them yet either. But may I point out that you haven't defended your claim that the Church believed the baptism of the Mormons was valid, and then that it wasn't (of course, if you go far enough back, the Mormons changed their theology of baptism as well; so there may in fact have been a time when it was valid, but post-change it wasn't).

For my part, I'll again point out that the CDF simply replied to a question in 2001, and it is indisputable that that particular document does not claim that there was a time when the Mormon baptism was valid. And before that time, the American Bishops conference and the individual bishops in America claimed that Mormon baptism was invalid.

As to the 'tradition of apostles' per Eusebius, the reference is to letters from Alexandria (NOT Rome) to Palestine. Alexandria taught Christ died on the 14th. (See Clement of Alexandria and Peter of Alexandria).

"The reference" was not what my quotation from Eusibius is about. It is: "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." You've also been dreadfully negligent in citing your sources: "(See Clement of Alexandria and Peter of Alexandria)" tells us nothing about what you're trying to prove.

You've also ignored the rest of what I said regarding the matter; which is that, in condemning the Quartodecimians, the Church didn't say that Christ was not crucified on the 14th. The Church was simply reaffirming that the commemoration of it should be on a Friday; this ties in to the Church's understanding of Sacred Time, because then the very days become a part of the re-experience of Holy Week. The Church also certainly did not "posthumously excommunicate" anyone who had commemorated Christ's death on the fourteenth. That would be utterly senseless.

(NewMan99, who recently passed away, you may have seen the thread on it in OBOB, was the one who suggested I find an answer to that little Eusebian comment. I regret not having shared with him the information found a couple years later. May he rest in peace.)

Does it ever worry you that you might have given him false information, given your track-record of getting things dreadfully wrong but acting as confidently in them as though they were right? Such as the memorable experience with Christimas presents, or the Pope's "changed mind" regarding contraception, or again, your misreading of the Pope's Jesus of Nazareth, or your completely disproven claims that I had committed argumentum ex silentio? Does that ever cause you a bit of pause?

Your Body in Heaven is missing quite a few people that you think are there, but were excommunicated by your group.

If you say so, Pope Standing Up. For my part, though, I'll be a Sedevacantist on this one and point out again that the Church uses the word "anathema" in different ways and that only a person looking for contradiction where it does not exist would make such a claim.

JuCh: "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;"

Given what we know about Honorus and others, the Church (RC) on earth believes it has the power to exclude those already judged and found worthy. They've usurped the power reserved solely to God.

...So, does that mean that you have no problem with the definition? I asked you if you, yourself, have any problems with the definition. Unless you believe that the Church on earth "has the power to exclude those already judged and found worthy," then you haven't presented an objection to the definition.

I'm about through here. The stomach can only take so much.

Now now, I've played very nicely with you. The fact that you've given up trying to prove that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," and have taken instead to simply repeating the charge well after you've been shown-up should not a cause for indigestion for you. On the other hand, our understanding of the psycho-somatic nature of such things is still very incomplete, and so it may be that getting proved wrong three times in the same thread (two charges of fallacy disproven, and a charge of "re-definition") may be just a little too much for a person's functioning. If that is the case, my non-professional opinion is rest and fruit juice. I'll be back to "check-up" on another of your threads at some later date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzaousios
Upvote 0