Patron saints

Standing Up

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

Since the time of the apostles, the term 'anathema' has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction, known as excommunication (which, according to Catholic teaching cuts one's soul off from the Catholic Church, and therefore also salvation). The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics; for example, the Synod of Gangra (c. 340) pronounced that Manicheanism was anathema. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and "minor" excommunication evolved, where "minor" excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of Eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Church.
Anathema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some groups teach they have the power to anathematize those already iin the presence of God.

JuCh has yet to figure out how this impacts his theory, given, amongst other things, that the Church excommunicated those (Mary, apostles, and others) in heaven and earth who taught that Christ died on the 14th.
 
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-


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.

When it's been shown over and over what you've said and resaid, it does no good to go over and over the same info.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

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

Of course you'd think that they couldn't possibly have meant that excommunication would mean cut off from the Body. How insensitive and politically incorrect.

Anyway, I've shown the sources and early definition of anathema and excommunication (cut off, expelled from the Body). I can't help that the Church, rather than repent, has tried instead to redefine what she meant.
 
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
-snip-


Why should I read these letters? You haven't read them yet either.

Sorry, but I have. Go read them within context of c250ad.

"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.

This is like your talking about baptism issue between Firmilan and Stephen. You don't know the issues and no I'm not going to educate you. You may simply dismiss me or go open the books.

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.

Quartodeciman means 14. They were excommunicated and anathematized. These would include Mary and the apostles.

What you need to affirm, not that its senseless, but that the Church's Council decisions and Pope decisions are null and void as regards the Body of Christ on earth and in heaven. Until then, you're stuck here:

Belief 1: What RC says applies to RC only.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

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

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 and the meaning of anathema and excommunication), 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.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pope Stephen joined to Heretical Baptism (Firmilian's proof is that their teachings came after the aposolic age. What happens, however, is because Rome believes in the develop doctrine theory (rather than in the "faith once delivered", it has to accept heresy baptism as on par with Christian baptism):

5. But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you, and the winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your letter. And indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors, you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too, after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wicked lies. It is plain that the other heretics, also, afterwards introduced their evil sects and perverse inventions, even as every one was led by error; all of whom, it is evident, were self-condemned, and have declared against themselves an inevitable sentence before the day of judgment; and he [Stephen] who confirms the baptism of these, what else does he [Stephen] do but adjudge himself with them, and condemn himself, making himself a partaker with such?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

He's also accusing the Pope of lying, stupidly.

There's much more on this issue. I mistakenly thought JuCh was familiar with these things. So, rather than derail, I'll let this issue also go. Just please don't mistake this letting go to mean agreement. There's no sense going round and round and I'm not interested in instructing JuCh on it.
 
Upvote 0

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
How's my patient this morning? You don't have to worry about impressing anybody by your post-count; it doesn't make you look like you have more to say by spreading your answer out over several posts.

Let's start with this; when I said that you've failed to show that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you responded like this: "When it's been shown over and over what you've said and resaid, it does no good to go over and over the same info." So, I'll go over this piece by piece and prove that you have not shown that I re-defined it.

You first accused me of re-defining "Christian" in post 74. This was your justification: "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." In the first place, I'll point out that never did I define "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC); I simply defined - with your agreement - "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ" (pst 29). You quote nothing that shows that I defined "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC)"; and that is because it does not exist. I responded at the time by saying: "I specifically denied defining the term 'Christian' beyond 'a Christian is a person who remains in the body of Christ [in post 42].'"

But more importantly, you began to assert that I defined as a Christian only those who believe all that the Catholic Church does; you made it more explicit in post 77, when you said: "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." My response was: "I've never said that, have I?" which is perfectly true. Then, in post 82, I pointed out that a person who denies a doctrine of the Catholic Church can be called a heretic: "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." If your claim is: Judechild says that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, it naturally follows, then, that I must define all heretics as non-Christians. But I have not defined all heretics as non-Christians (you've merely asserted it). Ergo, I have not said that all non-Catholics are non-Christians. It is a simple modus tollens, which is a valid argument form; do you have a valid argument against it?

I will also prove that my line-of-reasoning is logically consistent. It looks like this:

P1: All Catholics are Christians
P2: All heretics are non-Catholics
Therefore, it does not follow that all heretics are non-Christians (because, after all, P1 does not say "only Catholics are Christians," leaving open the possibility that they could still be Christians).

If you really want to tell me that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you need to quit playing around and show where I said "all heretics are non-Christians." This means that you need to go back, look at my responses, and post the exact wording. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke and hoping that the non-existent observers of the thread will believe you.

Now, on the issue of your nonsense about Mormon baptism and these letters from the third century. In the first place, it doesn't do you any good to go around saying "I mistakenly thought JuCh was familiar with these things. So, rather than derail, I'll let this issue also go." Just like your use of the Canons of the Council of Carthage two years ago, you know very well that people haven't read them ahead of time, and that is of course the reason that you use them. Ignorance is one of your best friends; the trouble is that it's fickle, and when someone has actually researched it, your claims fall away. So don't go putting on your airs of pretend intellectualism when you don't know what it is that you're talking about. Quite simply, I do not believe you when you say that you've read those letters; and that is based on experience with you that you know better than to deny. Hence, I will not waste my time; I'll get around to it in a year or so and come back - just like your Christmas presents thread.

Secondly, I asked you for a very simple thing; I asked you to show where the Church approved of Mormon baptism before 2001; that is to say, you need to show that the Mormon baptism was approved by the Bishops at one time. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, since the Church believes that Baptism must be valid, even her own baptisms. If there is not, for instance, the Trinitarian Formula - even if it's done by a Catholic priest - it is invalid. But you haven't found anything from the Church that approves of Mormon baptism... by the way, is that Schaff? The same Schaff that you cited a year ago, claiming that it proved that the Canons from the Council of Carthage were still applicable today, until I read it myself and posted numerous parts of the book back to you until you gave up under the mounting evidence from the very source you cited to refute me?

Also, I will again not take you seriously until you cite a source other than Wikipedia on the subject of "anathema." If you read, for example, the Catholic enyclopedia on the subject of excommunication, you'll find different definitions (although that's a lazy-course too).

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

Hello, Operator? Please put me through to post 82: " But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not." Thank you, Operator.

As for your later two options; I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect on the subject of anathema. I've already given you examples of different ways that the term "anathema" is used. Consequetly, I will not answer, because the options are based on a faulty premise. Furthermore, you would not want me to say that "Any and all Council decisions post Acts 15 do not bind any Christian in heaven or earth" because in order to make that claim, I'd have to affirm a "Council decision post Acts 15" in the first place; the Council decision that put Acts 15 in the Canon of Scripture.

And, again, it is simply not true that the Church excommunicated people who had passed away who were Quartodecimians (and I'm glad that you know that it means 14). The Church did not say that celebrating Easter on the 14th was itself wrong; only that it was inappropriate that the Church celebrate such an important Solumnity on two separate days, and since Sunday was the weekly commemoration of Easter in a minor way, it was appropriate that the whole Church celebrate the Resurrection on a Sunday.

Finally... so, do you not have any problems with the definition of the Body in Heaven as "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"? We can do this all year, if you like.
 
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
How's my patient this morning? You don't have to worry about impressing anybody by your post-count; it doesn't make you look like you have more to say by spreading your answer out over several posts.

It keeps the variety of issues separated. We've established a number of points as problems with your theory. Until you address these things, you have nothing but opinion.

Finally... so, do you not have any problems with the definition of the Body in Heaven as "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"? We can do this all year, if you like.

What's been revealed in this discussion is when some folks speak about the communion of saints, they actually believe it, whereas some really do not.

RC believes it has the power not only to excommunicate posthumously, but also to rescind an excommunication after someone (supposedly) has been sent to hell by RC. Joan of Arc is an example of the latter. The quartodecimans, and others, the former.

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, to sum, the defnition about some body in heaven and hell as already judged doesn't begin to match the reality of what RC thinks. JuCh if you want to express your opinion, go ahead, but it's now apparent its not even RC POV, just personal opinion.

JuCh--the Body in heaven has been judged and can't change.

RC--the Body in heaven may change depending on RC excommunications and mind changes. (The problem, as noted over and over above, is twofold. What would become RC/EO (the Church) excommunicated Mary, apostles, and many others over the centuries for their beliefs. And the Church taught heretical baptism was valid, which allowed heretics without being reborn into the Body and into heaven. No one knows to whom they're praying because the dead may or may not be part of that body.)

Christian--the Body in heaven isn't ever asked for prayer, the example is to ask others in the Body on earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

judechild

Catholic Socratic
Jul 5, 2009
2,661
204
The Jesuit War-Room
✟11,369.00
Faith
Catholic
Important break-in-the-action:

The most significant part of what you have just posted is that you did not respond to paragraphs 2 to 7 of my most recent post (post 107). These paragraphs contain my argument against your claim that I have redefined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." Since it contains a valid argument both for my own claim (A syllogistic proof), and against your claim (a Modus Tollens), it is necessary that you engage it. If you do not (id est, if you plead nolo contendere), then you are allowing a valid argument to stand against you while having none of your own, and it is therefore proven that your claim is false; and that I have not redefined the term "Christian."

Please clarify your position on this subject, and when that is done I will return to your post 108.
 
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--P1: All Catholics are Christians
P2: All heretics are non-Catholics
Therefore, it does not follow that all heretics are non-Christians (because, after all, P1 does not say "only Catholics are Christians," leaving open the possibility that they could still be Christians).

If you really want to tell me that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you need to quit playing around and show where I said "all heretics are non-Christians." This means that you need to go back, look at my responses, and post the exact wording. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke and hoping that the non-existent observers of the thread will believe you."

Like I've said, all you're affirming is what RC has opined over the centuries, like Unam Sanctum, Excommunications, marian dogmas, etc, are nothing more than opinion. RC dogma as well as ECouncil are not binding to Christians, including RC.

But this is impossible for you to affirm. So around we go.
 
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
JuChi has also dropped his response to the excommunication of the quartodecimans (Christ died on the 14th). Those who believed this were Mary, the apostles, and others. Rome taught Christ died on the 15th. Their body is shrinking and doesn't contain folks prayed to.
 
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: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.

SU: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.

Added: No Christian, but RC, believes RC dogma. None.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Although this deserves its own thread also, I'll just reiterate from the 13th session of the 6th EC.

" 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 Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. "

Pope Honorius of the RC Body as its Pope was later expelled from the holy Church of God (aka RC). So much for papal infallibilty.

The larger point is again to show that excommunication expelled Christians from the body when beliefs clashed. This is what happened when the so-called holy Church of God excommunicated Mary, the apostles, and others who taught Christ died on the 14th.

I, however, along with Firmilian of 256ad believe RC vainly pretends apostolic authority. But this is why it is so important to adhere to what apostles did and did not say. Nowhere are Christians instructed to pray to the deceased.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

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

Decision time:

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 and the meaning of anathema and excommunication), 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.
 
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
Like I've said, all you're affirming is what RC has opined over the centuries, like Unam Sanctum, Excommunications, marian dogmas, etc, are nothing more than opinion. RC dogma as well as ECouncil are not binding to Christians, including RC.

But this is impossible for you to affirm. So around we go.

That is not a response, because it has nothing to do with your original claim. That claim was that in this argument I re-defined the term "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." I have proven that I have not. Your response here says nothing about the re-definition; instead, you've moved to a new claim that has nothing to do with the original. Let me show you that your response has nothing to do with your charge; this is what your most recent response looks like:

You are saying "Judechild has redefined the term 'Christian' to mean 'Roman Catholic only'" (see, for example, post 98). Catholic dogma is "nothing more than opinion." Therefore, Judechild has redefined the term "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only."

Do you see how your reasoning that you give in your most recent response has absolutely nothing to do with the claim, and hence is invalid? It may even be that it is true that "RC dogma as well as ECouncil are not binding to Christians, including RC" But that doesn't affect whether or not in this argument I have re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." You might as well have said "It often rains in Portland; therefore, Judechild has redefined 'Christian to mean 'Roman Catholic only.'"

So I'll ask you again; do you have a response to my proof for my claim (that I have not re-defined the term "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only") and against your claim (that I have)? If you do not respond to a valid argument, then you are in formal defeat ("formal" refering to "of form") because you've allowed a valid logical argument to stand against your claim, and another to stand for my claim. I'll re-post paragraphs 2 through 7 for you.

JuChi has dropped his responses to the heretical baptism issue, thus also showing the affirmation that RC body consists of heretics.

This must be the most puerile thing I have read in recent memory on these forums. I said in my last post "Please clarify your position on this subject, and when that is done I will return to your post 108." That, in case it needs to be explained, means "after you have responded to a crucial part of this discussion, then I will return and respond to the rest of your charges." It's basic cause-and effect; if you respond to this part, then I will respond to those parts. This is a lot more than you give to me; after all, you tried to completely ignore paragraphs 2 - 7 of my ante-penultimate post, whereas I am promising to return to yours. And, despite your attempts to goad, I will not return to post 108 until you do. Because, like I just showed, you have not actually responded to my arguments (and your post 113 is outdated; I already disproved it in my argument; you have to find where I say "All heretics are non-Christians" if you want it to be valid).

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

Let's start with this; when I said that you've failed to show that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you responded like this: "When it's been shown over and over what you've said and resaid, it does no good to go over and over the same info." So, I'll go over this piece by piece and prove that you have not shown that I re-defined it.

You first accused me of re-defining "Christian" in post 74. This was your justification: "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." In the first place, I'll point out that never did I define "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC); I simply defined - with your agreement - "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ" (pst 29). You quote nothing that shows that I defined "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC)"; and that is because it does not exist. I responded at the time by saying: "I specifically denied defining the term 'Christian' beyond 'a Christian is a person who remains in the body of Christ [in post 42].'"

But more importantly, you began to assert that I defined as a Christian only those who believe all that the Catholic Church does; you made it more explicit in post 77, when you said: "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." My response was: "I've never said that, have I?" which is perfectly true. Then, in post 82, I pointed out that a person who denies a doctrine of the Catholic Church can be called a heretic: "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." If your claim is: Judechild says that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, it naturally follows, then, that I must define all heretics as non-Christians. But I have not defined all heretics as non-Christians (you've merely asserted it). Ergo, I have not said that all non-Catholics are non-Christians. It is a simple modus tollens, which is a valid argument form; do you have a valid argument against it?

I will also prove that my line-of-reasoning is logically consistent. It looks like this:

P1: All Catholics are Christians
P2: All heretics are non-Catholics
Therefore, it does not follow that all heretics are non-Christians (because, after all, P1 does not say "only Catholics are Christians," leaving open the possibility that they could still be Christians).

If you really want to tell me that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you need to quit playing around and show where I said "all heretics are non-Christians." This means that you need to go back, look at my responses, and post the exact wording. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke and hoping that the non-existent observers of the thread will believe you.
 
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
That is not a response, because it has nothing to do with your original claim. That claim was that in this argument I re-defined the term "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." I have proven that I have not. -snip-.

Last time.

JuCh: But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not.


SU: That is not true. RC dogma is applicable only to RC. RC dogma is rejected by Christians.

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

No Christian, but RC, believes RC dogma. None.


It is not true that any dogma is applicable to all Christians whether they believe it or not.

Now, at this point, you have a choice, which if you will choose, we can move on. If not, I think we're through:

1) RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians, including RC

or

2) RC dogma is applicable to RC only.
 
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
Wanted to reiterate this from the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council on the Church (what would become RC, EO, etc) expelling and anathematizing their Pope and dead men from their body.

" The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations 343of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. 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 Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches. "
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Not only is papal infalibility dogma rejected by their own words, but also shown as regards the communion of saints in heaven and on earth that they believe they could pre and post excommunicate from the body. They (believed/acted) were expelling from the Church in heaven those dead men. IOW, the bishops had died, gone to heaven, but the Church on earth decided their doctrine wrong, so expelled them from the presence of God.

Again, the point is who one prays to in heaven, may or may not be part of your body. Best to do what apostles said---ask the living on earth saints for prayer.
 
Upvote 0

judechild

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

JuCh: But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not.


SU: That is not true. RC dogma is applicable only to RC. RC dogma is rejected by Christians.

This means, again, you're attempting to redefine Christian to solely mean RC with her dogmas. Again, what of EO who rejects RC dogma?...

Well, at least this time you're on the correct subject-matter; but I have disproven this line-of-reasoning, and continuing to argue it will not help you or your argument. Read my argument this time and you will see that you are making yourself look ridiculous. I'll re-phrase it for you this time:

What you are claiming here is that only a Catholic believes everything that a Catholic does; that is true. You also say that "RC dogma is rejected by Christians," by which I take you to mean "non-Catholic Christians." This is also true. But in order to make your reasoning valid, you have to show where I connect "RC dogma is rejected" with "non-Christian;" that is to say, you need to show where I say "because so-and-so rejects Catholic teaching, he is not a Christian." Otherwise, you are saying this:

"Judechild says that Catholic dogma is applicable to everyone (i.e. that all people should believe it). But not everyone believes it. Therefore... uh, well..." Do you see that your premises do not support the conclusion "every person who disbelieves the teachings of the Catholic Church is a non-Christian."? It simply doesn't matter that you keep posting my responses showing that I say there are dogmas that all Christians are called to believe, unless you show that - by that refusal to believe them - I say that those people are for that reason non-Christian.

But it really does not matter whether you agree or not. Because I have proven that your claim is false with this argument: you are saying "Judechild says that all non-Catholics are non-Christians." It naturally follows, then, that I must define all heretics (i.e. persons who disbelieve Catholic dogma) as non-Christians. But I have not defined all heretics as non-Christians (you've merely asserted it). Ergo, I have not said that all non-Catholics are non-Christians. It is a simple modus tollens,"

I have also proven that my claim is true with this argument: P1: All heretics are non-Catholics. P2: All Catholics are Christians. Therefore, it does not follow that all heretics are non-Christians (because, after all, P1 does not say "only Catholics are Christians," leaving open the possibility that they could still be Christians).

Since I have proven these things, and they are not contested by you (you're only repeating what has already been logically disproven, which is no contest), it follows that I have not re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," and that means that I still have your support on the five axioms and the definition. It does not matter whether you agree or not, because logic doesn't care about approval or disapproval - it simply is what it is. Hence, my developing argument for Saintly Intercession is so far intact, and I can say with confidence that those in Heaven are still alive, individualized members of the One Body of Christ which is the Church, and that I have your approval for that statement.

No Christian, but RC, believes RC dogma. None.


It is not true that any dogma is applicable to all Christians whether they believe it or not.

You have no reason to say "it is not true that any dogma is applicable to all Christians whether they believe it or not" because your premise is "no Christian, but RC, believes RC dogma." If that is your premise then you are committing the fallacy known as begging the question, because you have to assume that the statement "doma is applicable... whether they believe it or not" is false in order for the premise "no Christian, but RC, believes RC dogma" to support it. If, on the other hand, there are dogmas that all Christians should believe because they have been revealed as truth (e.g. Christ's divinity, the books of the New Testament) then it does not matter whether the person believes in it or not; they still apply to every person.

Now, at this point, you have a choice, which if you will choose, we can move on. If not, I think we're through:

Your choices are based on a fallacy, just like your argument for me redefining "Christian" is outdated and foundationless. If you have a problem with that, then so be it; and if you are finished because you refuse to see that, it is not my problem because the logic speaks for itself. But, as the Ghost of Christmas Past says: "Truth lives!"

But, if you acknowledge your claim about me "re-defining" Christian is faulty, then I will turn my attention to your other claims. It's already been proven logically, but you can save a bit of your credibility by admitting your mistake now.
 
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
Here's what you said.

JuCh: But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not.


-snip-
What you are claiming here is that only a Catholic believes everything that a Catholic does; that is true. You also say that "RC dogma is rejected by Christians," by which I take you to mean "non-Catholic Christians." This is also true.

RC accepts RC dogma. True.
Non-RC rejects RC dogma, but is still a full Christian with the fulness of faith, just as much as an RCer would say about RC. (To agree with this is to reject RC, but you know that too.) True?

JuCh: RC dogma is applicable to all Christians, whether they know it or not.

SU: That is your redefinition from Christian to RC because no, it isn't applicable. EO, P, dead and alive saints around the world in space and time for centuries have rejected RC dogma. It isn't applicable.

But in order to make your reasoning valid, you have to show where I connect "RC dogma is rejected" with "non-Christian;" that is to say, you need to show where I say "because so-and-so rejects Catholic teaching, he is not a Christian." -snip-

You know what de fide dogma is, right? Do you think a Christian who full well knowing and intentionally rejects RC de fide dogma is in hell, having died with/in mortal sin?

REITERATION:
Now, at this point, you have a choice, which if you will choose, we can move on. If not, I think we're through:

1) RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians, including RC

or

2) RC dogma is applicable to RC only.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0