Patron saints

[judechild]

Here's what you said.

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

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?

I do appreciate the slight change in your approach, but you're weakening. Never before have you brought up "with the fullness of faith" as a necessary part of "Christian," and neither have I brought that into the equation. Of course I do not believe that everyone has the fullness of Faith; that would make me a relativist. I'll also point out, though, that you don't believe that I have the fullness of faith either, but I'm not sure that you have the audacity to claim that I am not a Christian. This means that neither you nor I find the possession of "the fullness of Faith" to be necessary in order for a person to be called "Christian." Hence it is irrelevant.

Since I believe - as the Church does - that Christians may be such, even without possessing the fullness of Faith, it does not help you. In fact, it makes it harder, because now you must show where I equate "Christian" to "fullness of Faith," and from their get to "Catholic only." You now have two things to show, as opposed to just one.

In other words, you still haven't touched my logic for my claim, and my logic against your claim.

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.

This is what your argument is looking like:

Judechild has defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." This is because he says that Catholic teaching is applicable to all Christians, but it is not." Do you see how senseless that is?

Like I pointed out before, whether or not Catholic teaching is "applicable" is irrelevant when considering whether or not I re-defined Christian to mean Roman Catholic only. This is because it may be that Catholic teaching is completely wrong in every particular and universal, but that doesn't affect whether or not in this argument I've defined "Christian" as "Roman Catholic only." I have only, in this entire thread, defined "Christian" as "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ."

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?

If it's in latin, I'd like to humbly suggest that I know better than you what it means.

Well, obviously, if the person "died with/in mortal sin" then that person is in hell. You believe the same thing, even if you don't call it that; since "mortal sin" is defined as a metaphysical separation of the soul from saving grace. As for "knowing and intentionally rejects," I cannot say if that person is in hell, because I cannot know if any individual person is in hell. Even Judas I cannot say is definitively in hell, because I do not know what happened in the final moments.

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.

Yes, you keep re-posting it; and I keep telling you that it is based on a false dilemma (though, might I suggest that, if you you're not serious about high-tailing, you may want to remove "if not, I think we're through." When you post that about three or four times, it kind of loses its meaning).

 

[Standing Up]

SU: 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.
​

I do appreciate the slight change in your approach, but you're weakening. Never before have you brought up "with the fullness of faith" as a necessary part of "Christian," and neither have I brought that into the equation. Of course I do not believe that everyone has the fullness of Faith;... but I'm not sure that you have the audacity to claim that I am not a Christian. -snip-

Good. You've not too clearly made choice #1. RC dogma does not apply to Christians, including RC.

EO, P, at least, are in the Body. Unam Sanctum is out the door. Papal infallibility forget it. Communion with the Pope in Rome, worthless. 4 marian dogmas, rejected. Council decisions about post and pre excommunications, pfft. The Roman idea about eucharist as same ongoing sacrifice, no way. Excellent progress at last.

This is what your argument is looking like:

Judechild has defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." This is because he says that Catholic teaching is applicable to all Christians, but it is not." Do you see how senseless that is?

Not exactly. You said this:

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

Again, near as I can decipher, you've changed your mind and rejected the idea that any RC dogma is applicable to all Christians.

Like I pointed out before, whether or not Catholic teaching is "applicable" is irrelevant when considering whether or not I re-defined Christian to mean Roman Catholic only. This is because it may be that Catholic teaching is completely wrong in every particular and universal, but that doesn't affect whether or not in this argument I've defined "Christian" as "Roman Catholic only." I have only, in this entire thread, defined "Christian" as "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ."

Again, great, you've picked #1. RC dogma does not matter to the Body of Christ. It could be completely wrong. Bingo!

If it's in latin, I'd like to humbly suggest that I know better than you what it means.

Well, obviously, if the person "died with/in mortal sin" then that person is in hell. You believe the same thing, even if you don't call it that; since "mortal sin" is defined as a metaphysical separation of the soul from saving grace. As for "knowing and intentionally rejects," I cannot say if that person is in hell, because I cannot know if any individual person is in hell. Even Judas I cannot say is definitively in hell, because I do not know what happened in the final moments.

Don't equivocate and condescend now. It's too late. Just to nail this conversation over, the 4 marian de fide dogmas are meaningless "dogma" to RC and all other Christians. Those Christians who reject those and all other RC dogmas are still fully and completely in the Body whether in heaven or earth.

Now, since we can finally reject RC dogma because it may be completely wrong, we can start at zero and go forth together, in unity. Doesn't that feel right to you?

The apostles had two perfect examples from which to teach in NT scripture the idea we should ask the dead in Christ to pray for us. But they didn't. Therefore, since we can reject later, nonapostolic, and non valid RC ideas on this, we can "settle on" what apostles said and didn't say.

 

[judechild]

Good. You've not too clearly made choice #1. RC dogma does not apply to Christians, including RC.

No, I have not made choice 1. I have said that Catholic dogma is "applicable" to everyone - that is why some people are called "heretics." A person is not a heretic for believing that Pluto is a planet, because that does not apply to a person's faith. I said "Of course I do not believe that everyone has the fullness of Faith," but I also said that "the 'fullness of Faith" [is not] necessary in order for a person to be called 'Christian.'" That doesn't mean that the person should not still accept those teachings; it only means that the person is still a Christian, even if he or she is a heretic. It is clearly better to believe something that is true, then to believe something that is false; and a Christian should believe all things which have been revealed. Therefore, since I do believe that all dogma in the Church is revealed, it follows that it is better for the Christian to believe them than to not (which is why I said that to deliberately reject them is a sin in some way). Itaque, the dogmas of the Catholic Church do "apply" to everybody.

Neither you nor I have ever said that having the fullness of faith is necessary to be called a Christian, and that is the point. You have to show that I myself have connected the term "Christian" to the term "has the fullness of faith" and then to the term "Roman Catholic only."

EO, P, at least, are in the Body. Unam Sanctum is out the door. Papal infallibility forget it. 4 marian dogmas, rejected. Council decisions about post and pre excommunications, pfft. The Roman idea about eucharist as same ongoing sacrifice, no way. Excellent progress at last.

I realize that you are on insecure ground, and would like for me to take up any one of those trusts, but I will not until you get this figured out. You see, you haven't logically proved anything; you only use rhetoric.

Not exactly. You said this:

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

Again, near as I can decipher, you've changed your mind and rejected the idea that any RC dogma is applicable to all Christians.

Um, yes, that's what I said you claimed; thank you for affirming it. But I'm saying what you are claiming about me, not my own claim. You see, I said that your argument looks like this:

Judechild has defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." This is because he says that Catholic teaching is applicable to all Christians, but it is not."

Which is exactly what your reasoning was (except now you seem to have forgot that you were trying to prove that I'd changed the definition of "Christian").

Again, great, you've picked #1. RC dogma does not matter to the Body of Christ. It could be completely wrong. Bingo!

I am really very disappointed in your inability to reason. I wrote this:

Like I pointed out before, whether or not Catholic teaching is "applicable" is irrelevant when considering whether or not I re-defined Christian to mean Roman Catholic only. This is because it may be that Catholic teaching is completely wrong in every particular and universal, but that doesn't affect whether or not in this argument I've defined "Christian" as "Roman Catholic only." I have only, in this entire thread, defined "Christian" as "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ."

It was in response to this:

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.

I'll put this in bold, so that you don't miss it: My point was that whether Catholic teaching is true or not does not affect whether I've re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." Hence, I said "whether or not Catholic teaching is "applicable" is irrelevant when considering whether or not I re-defined Christian to mean Roman Catholic only." I did not say or intend that it be taken to mean that Catholic teaching is actually irrelevant, only that its truth value doesn't matter in this case (because we're not talking about the truth-value of Catholic teaching).

Don't equivocate and condescend now. It's too late. We can further agree that, for example, just to nail this conversation over, the 4 marian de fide dogmas are meaningless to RC and all other Christians. Those Christians who reject those and all other RC dogmas are still fully and completely in the Body whether in heaven or earth.

Extra! Extra! Standing Up Claims Equivocation; Equivocates Before Making Accusation!

You equivocated on my response to you in the section just above when you wrote: "Again, great, you've picked #1. RC dogma does not matter to the Body of Christ. It could be completely wrong. Bingo." In doing this, you ignored the actual point I was making; that whether or not Catholic teaching is true does not affect your claim that I changed the definition of Christian. And hence, that claim (that Catholic teaching is false) is irrelevant.

But, if you're going to claim I equivocated; prove it.

The apostles had two perfect examples from which to teach in NT scripture the idea we should ask the dead in Christ to pray for us. But they didn't. Therefore, since we can reject later, nonapostolic, and non valid RC ideas on this, we can "settle on" what apostles said and didn't say.

You're seriously going to go back to your embarrassing argumentum ex silentio? That is the most pathetic thing I've seen. The second most pathetic thing I've seen is that you've choosen to hide again; you completely ignored that we're still talking about your claim that I changed the definition of "Christian" to "Roman Catholic only." Instead, you seem content to frolick and pretend to have said something extraordinary, when in reality you haven't connected the term "Christian" to "has the fullness of Faith" to "Catholic only."

If this is the state that you are reduced to, it is a crying shame. The validity of my two arguments for my claim and against yours still stands, and they will stand until the end of time. When you are a little less passionate and less afraid of the consequences (which are not extensive), then you can drop your little farce and reconsider them. Until you disprove them, I don't care how much juvenile hiding you do; I will continue to remind you of them. You have categorically failed to show that I have changed the definition of Christian during the course of this debate, and now you are returning to an argument that has been proven to be fallacious. Now do you want to get back on track and show how I redefined the term "Christian," or am I to take this cowardice as a sign of affirmation?

 

[Standing Up]

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

or

2) RC dogma is applicable to RC only.

No, I have not made choice 1. I have said that Catholic dogma is "applicable" to everyone - that is why some people are called "heretics." -snip-

Okay, let's try to really nail this down, so we can move on.

JuCh believes RC dogma is applicable to all. But the early Church, EO, P, Old Catholic, etc, all reject RC dogma. So, RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians.

Now, which do you choose?

2) RC dogma is applicable to RC only
OR
1) RC dogma is not applicable to all

 

[Standing Up]

For those who might be wondering about this silly roundabout conversation ...

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these."[4]
​

The faithful are required to accept with the divine and Catholic faith all which the Church presents either as solemn decision or as general teaching. Yet not all teachings are dogma. The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.[5]"
-wiki-

The 4 Marian dogmas of RC are de fide. This, according to RC, obligates all Christians (RC, P, EO, etc) to either believe them or to be cast from the Body in mortal sin bound for hell, even if one started from the presence of God Himself.

So, we have to make a choice.

1) RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians, including RC
or
2) RC dogma is applicable for all Chrisians, including RC

There is no door #3.

JuCh knows this, but being a nice guy can't quite embrace the full and complete implications and consequences of that choice (his choice #2). This is one reason the conversation goes round and round.

 

[Rhamiel]

ok... it is for all people

 

[Standing Up]

ok... it is for all people

Great you're still here. You had said that earlier (RC dogma for all Christians), maintaing your consistency.

As a result, I can ask you, what do you make of the Church on earth (believing it is) excommunicating saints in heaven away from the presence of God into the bowels of hell?

 

[judechild]

For those who might be wondering about this silly roundabout conversation ...

The 4 Marian dogmas of RC are de fide. This, according to RC, obligates all Christians (RC, P, EO, etc) to either believe them or to be cast from the Body in mortal sin bound for hell, even if one started from the presence of God Himself.

That is not what your quotation of the Catechism says; it does not say "either believe them or to be cast from the Body in mortal sin bound for hell, even if one started from the presence of God Himself." In fact, Unitatis Redintegratio - the decree on Ecumenism by the Second Vatican Council - says "But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." But this does not affect the position of the Church that all persons are called to enter the Church in full ecclesial communion: "They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

It is true that dogma is "a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith," but the documents and the Catechism do not connect the term "Christian" to "affirms all dogmas of the Catholic faith." In fact, that is denied by the Decree on Ecumenism. Still, the situation of Christians outside the visible Church is concerning, and since we know of no way other than through the Church (that is to say, the Body of Christ) that a person can be saved, we of course want everyone to affirm these doctrines, so that they can be "fully incorporated in the society of the Church." The point right now is that I have not re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." And your attempts to make that connection are becoming more and more laughable.

You really should stop reading the relevant Wikipedia article, and then believing that you are an expert in whatever area you are claiming.

So, we have to make a choice.

1) RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians, including RC
or
2) RC dogma is applicable for all Chrisians, including RC

There is no door #3.

JuCh knows this, but being a nice guy can't quite embrace the full and complete implications and consequences of that choice (his choice #2). This is one reason the conversation goes round and round.

I think that it is highly appropriate that you abreviate my user-name; it seems indicative of your general approach to research. Might I suggest, though, that you figure out whether you want to call me "JuCh" or "JuChi?" I must say that I prefer the latter; it gives me a bit of an oriental flavor.

It's also nice of you to call me a nice person, but I am not one (not that I need to tell you, I'm sure). It's also good of you to change your options; for the past couple of times, you've given the choices "1) RC dogma is applicable to RC only, or 2) RC dogma is not applicable to all." Now the choices you give me drop the former choice, and give me the choice that I actually believe - which is that "RC dogma is applicable for all Chrisians, including RC." I do agree with that statement (this is also the way I responded in post 107, and post 82, but for some reason you ignored my affirmation both times; you even "bumped" that part word-for-word, right after I affirmed the choice).

 

[Standing Up]

That is not what your quotation of the Catechism says; it does not say "either believe them or to be cast from the Body in mortal sin bound for hell, even if one started from the presence of God Himself." In fact, Unitatis Redintegratio - the decree on Ecumenism by the Second Vatican Council - says "But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." But this does not affect the position of the Church that all persons are called to enter the Church in full ecclesial communion: "They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

Vat II didn't form any dogmas. Only opinions. Didn't rescind any RC dogmas. You know this.

It is true that dogma is "a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith," but the documents and the Catechism do not connect the term "Christian" to "affirms all dogmas of the Catholic faith." In fact, that is denied by the Decree on Ecumenism. Still, the situation of Christians outside the visible Church is concerning, and since we know of no way other than through the Church (that is to say, the Body of Christ) that a person can be saved, we of course want everyone to affirm these doctrines, so that they can be "fully incorporated in the society of the Church." The point right now is that I have not re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only." And your attempts to make that connection are becoming more and more laughable.

You really should stop reading the relevant Wikipedia article, and then believing that you are an expert in whatever area you are claiming.



I think that it is highly appropriate that you abreviate my user-name; it seems indicative of your general approach to research. Might I suggest, though, that you figure out whether you want to call me "JuCh" or "JuChi?" I must say that I prefer the latter; it gives me a bit of an oriental flavor.

It's also nice of you to call me a nice person, but I am not one (not that I need to tell you, I'm sure). It's also good of you to change your options; for the past couple of times, you've given the choices "1) RC dogma is applicable to RC only, or 2) RC dogma is not applicable to all." Now the choices you give me drop the former choice, and give me the choice that I actually believe - which is that "RC dogma is applicable for all Chrisians, including RC." I do agree with that statement (this is also the way I responded in post 107, and post 82, but for some reason you ignored my affirmation both times; you even "bumped" that part word-for-word, right after I affirmed the choice).

Thank you. We've now circled back to the point again.

JuCh chooses #2; RC dogma is applicable for all Christians.

The reality is, however, that Christians like EO, P, etc all reject RC dogma as spurious. Hence, RC dogma is not applicable for all Christians. Christians reject, amongst other things, all RC dogma like the 4 marian dogmas, unam sanctum, post excommunications, papal infalibility, heretical baptism, easter, etc, etc, etc.

What this means is, for simplicity's sake, there is the RC Body, there is the EO Body, there is the P Body, etc. Why? Because no one, but RC, agrees with RC. So, pray to the deceased, but odds are, they're not in said Body.

 

[Standing Up]

Unam Sanctum 1302:

... This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

EO, P, etc all laugh at the audacity. RC dogma binds no one, having left the apostolic path of the faith once delivered centuries before. As Firmilian said, anyone may know.

Jesus subject to the Roman Pontiff. Peter subject to the Roman Pontiff. Paul subject to the Roman Pontiff. Mary subject to the Roman Pontiff.

No. Wrong. We are not.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's another problem:

• Michael Cerularius, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1054.

The legal validity of this excommunication has been questioned as it was delivered by legates of Pope Leo IX after the Pope's death. It was declared lifted on December 7, 1965.[2]List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For 900 years, EO members may have invoked Cerularius, but being excommunicated, he wasn't a part of the Body. Horrors. One just never knows. Best to stick with what apostles said and didn't say (ask the living saints to pray, but never did they instruct us to ask the dead to pray).

How about Joan of Arc?

Saint Joan of Arc was excommunicated by Bishop Pierre Cauchon (even though he allowed her Holy Communion immediately before her immolation) on 30 May 1431. She was later fully reconciled to the Catholic Church at her posthumous Trial of Nullification on 7 July 1456.

25 years, not there. Too funny. Then they thought they posthumously reconciled her to them. Maybe since 1950 she's not there because she again disagrees with RC and hasn't been for near 600 years. Maybe RC is wrong, as was suggested is a possibility.

 

[judechild]

Vat II didn't form any dogmas. Only opinions. Didn't rescind any RC dogmas. You know this.

The 2nd Vatican Council didn't define dogma, but so what? (and of course, it couldn't have retracted dogma anyway - no, don't protest. When you've read all of the Ecumenical Councils' decrees in Latin, then I'll let you protest). There was a reason that the Second Vatican Council was held, and it was to express Catholic teaching in an official and episcopal way. Since we are talking about Catholic teaching, it is relevant to the discussion; that you find it inconvenient is not relevant.

The point of the matter is that it is Catholic teaching that non-Catholics can still be Christians; this is devastating for your claim that the Church does not teach that. Itaque, neither I, nor the Catholic Church, define "Christian" as "Roman Catholic only." In fact, the Catholic Church agrees with my definition, that a Christian is "one who remains in the Body of Christ." In section seven of Lumin Gentium, the Council says: "As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also are the faithful in Christ."

Thank you. We've now circled back to the point again.

JuCh chooses #2; RC dogma is applicable for all Christians.

The reality is, however, that Christians like EO, P, etc all reject RC dogma as spurious. Hence, RC dogma is not applicable for all Christians. Christians reject, amongst other things, all RC dogma like the 4 marian dogmas, unam sanctum, post excommunications, papal infalibility, heretical baptism, easter, etc, etc, etc.[/qutoe]

A person may disbelieve that a tax law aplies to him, but the reality of it does not depend on his subjective acknowledgement; all that matters is what is actually the fact. Ergo, it does not matter whether everyone rejects Catholic dogma, because it is objective. The truth of the matter does not depend on the subject anymore then the existence of an income tax depends on the subject.

You may as well say that Christ does not "apply" to everyone, because not everyone acknowledges Him. Quite simply, what you are advocating is religious relativism - where the truth-value of a religion is dependant upon the subjective position of the believer. This would give equal "application" to all religions, and thereby diminishing Christianity and Christ Himself.

What this means is, for simplicity's sake, there is the RC Body, there is the EO Body, there is the P Body, etc. Why? Because no one, but RC, agrees with RC. So, pray to the deceased, but odds are, they're not in said Body.

There is certainly not a Catholic Body, an Orthodox Body, and a Protestant Body. In the first place, several of your co-religionists would howl in protest and stamp their feet insisting that they are not Protestants; they would then likely demand a separate Body for themselves. The Body of Christ is one, unified Body ("so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" - Rom 12:5); you agreed to that definition - it is Axiom 3. Since you predicated your retraction of approval on my so-called "re-definition," and since it has been disproven that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic," your approval is still with it.

 

[judechild]

Alright, since you seem to have dropped the charge that I re-defined the term "Christian," let's look at Unam Santam.

Unam Sanctum 1302:

... This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

In the first place, if I asked you: what is the subject of the bull? How would you respond? With you, chances are that you'll not have read the actual thing, so I'll go through it quickly.

Unam Sanctam is written as a declaration that came out of the hostilities of King Philip the Fair of France. It was meant for one reason: to tell the King that the spiritual authority is higher than the temporal authority. For this reason, the bull references the two swords that Christ mentions, and interprets them to be temporal and spiritual authority: "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal." But, going on, it continues "one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2]." The bull goes on to say that, because "the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries," it is necessary that the King listen to the Pope "if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power..." From this, he logically extends his reasoning to mean that the temporal authority of King Philip must be subservient to the spiritual authority of Pope Boniface: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." The French King apparently didn't think too much of this, since he took Pope Boniface prisoner a few weeks later.

You may, then, want to quit laughing "at the audacity." The audacity is that you seem to think that Unam Sanctam is all about you. It is not. It is a treatise on the subservience of temporal authority to spiritual authority. What is more, it is not an exercise of Infallibility because, as the First Vatican Council states, Papal Infallibility must be overtly undertaken ex cathedra. There is no doubt when a dogma is defined, and Pope Boniface was not dogmatically declaring that their can be absolutely no one who is saved who does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope anymore than he was defining that the two swords are what he says they are. You and I can disagree with Pope Boniface as readily as we can with Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, or the principles enshrined in the recent encyclical on the Anglican Ordinariate (well... I can disagree with him; you can disagree with what you think he's saying), and know that that disagreement it is not heresy. A papal bull is an authoritative document (its name comes from the "bulla" - which is the signet that the Pope would seal the document with), and so it such not be taken lightly, but it is not infallible.

Actually, this treatise is fascinating. It is trying to answer the question: what is the interplay between temporal authority and spiritual authority? That is to say, does the civic society derive its authority from something higher, or is it only lateral and materialistic? Or is the civic society primarily there to assist the people to realize the Common Good, naturally extending to include the Greatest Common Good? Obviously, Pope Boniface was writing this treatise to try and save himself some embarassment, but it still raises interesting questions.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

There is certainly not a Catholic Body, an Orthodox Body, and a Protestant Body. In the first place, several of your co-religionists would howl in protest and stamp their feet insisting that they are not Protestants; they would then likely demand a separate Body for themselves. The Body of Christ is one, unified Body ("so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" - Rom 12:5); you agreed to that definition - it is Axiom 3. Since you predicated your retraction of approval on my so-called "re-definition," and since it has been disproven that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic," your approval is still with it.

Except that is the consequence of RC de fide dogmas promulgated on earth. Those who reject them are excommunicant both on earth and heaven.

You're still trying to create door #3. All RC dogma is for all Christians, but RC dogma really doesn't matter for Christians. Long as you're baptized, I'm okay, you're okay (shadows of syncretistic Stephen) In today's vernacular, it is really #1 for nice guys, for post Vat II RC.

1) RC dogma is not applicable to all Christians, including RC
or
2) RC dogma is applicable for all Chrisians, including RC
or, for nice guys--
3) RC dogma is applicable for all (but not really).

So, where does this leave us? Rephrased to bring up to date JuCh-Axiom 3-since Christian baptism doesn't matter, nor one faith, nor one Spirit, nor do Christian dogmas, we are all one big Body. I disagree (this must be how Cyprian and Firmilian felt back in 256ad).

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-A papal bull is an authoritative document (its name comes from the "bulla" - which is the signet that the Pope would seal the document with), and so it such not be taken lightly, but it is not infallible.-snip-

Beautiful. That would be #1.

#1) RC dogma (or bulls or de fide dogma) are not applicable for Christians, including RC.

 

[judechild]

Except that is the consequence of RC de fide dogmas promulgated on earth. Those who reject them are excommunicant both on earth and heaven.

You're still trying to create door #3. All RC dogma is for all Christians, but RC dogma really doesn't matter for Christians. Long as you're baptized, I'm okay, you're okay (shadows of syncretistic Stephen) In today's vernacular, it is really #1 for nice guys, for post Vat II RC.

You know that neither I, nor Vatican II said that. The Catholic Church knows only of one way to salvation, and that is through the grace of God which subsists in the Catholic Church. And that is why she believes that Catholic teaching "applies" to all Christians.

In saying that non-Catholics can be Christian, we haven't yet touched on who can get to Heaven; we've only defined the term "Christian" to be "one who remains in the Body of Christ" (which, by the way, is still One).

So, where does this leave us? Rephrased to bring up to date JuCh-Axiom 3-since Christian baptism doesn't matter, nor one faith, nor one Spirit, nor do Christian dogmas, we are all one big Body. I disagree (this must be how Cyprian and Firmilian felt back in 256ad).

That is unsound. I never have said that "Christian baptism doesn't matter, nor one faith, nor one Spirit, nor do Christian dogmas." I've said that they do matter, and that it is a sin to reject them. All that I've said is that it is possible to be a Christian, and not to acknowledge all the Church's doctrines (because of our common, Christian baptism). That is not to say that "everyone's alright." That is what you were trying to say in your last post, not me. I believe in the objectivity of Catholic dogma, and that its "application" is not predicated on the subjective acknowledgment of it. Hence, I am trying to convince you of the truth of Catholic dogma - because of the belief that it does, in fact, apply to you.

 

[judechild]

Beautiful. That would be #1.

#1) RC dogma (or bulls or de fide dogma) are not applicable for Christians, including RC.

You really are determined to be a bull in logic's china-shop, aren't you?

You are equivocating again. I just said that the bull is not dogma - it had a specific place and intent, and that intent was to say that the spiritual authority is over the temporal. But you're lumping it in with dogma - even after saying that the bull is not dogma, and then saying that all dogma is irrelevant. The illogic looks like this:

1) Dogma is not in this papal bull
2) A Papal bull is not a binding document on all the faithful.
3) Therefore, no dogma is a binding document on all the faithful.

The problem with this are that, first of all, the conclusion does not follow from premise 1 and premise 2. In order to follow, Premise 1 would have to say "Dogma is in a Papal Bull," otherwise you're guilty of another non sequitur." But you divide the papal bull from dogma when you say "RC dogma (or bulls or de fide dogma)." Secondly, I did say that it is an "authoritative document." That is to say, the ordinry magistarium of the Church was involved which even there commands an amount of obedience; hence, it is "applicable," just not "applicable as dogma." And this is, of course, because it isn't dogma. Hence, it is not heresy to propose a different understanding of the interplay between the spiritual and temporal authorities.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Beautiful. That would be #1.

#1) RC dogma (or bulls or de fide dogma) are not applicable for Christians, including RC.
​

You really are determined to be a bull in logic's china-shop, aren't you?

You are equivocating again. I just said that the bull is not dogma - it had a specific place and intent, and that intent was to say that the spiritual authority is over the temporal. But you're lumping it in with dogma-snip-

So, Catholic Encyclopedia got it wrong?

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep.

That is incorrect? So, you still choose #1 today?

1) RC dogma is not applicable to Christians.

2) RC dogma is applicable to Christians (unam sanctum, CEncyclopedia).

Evidently we need to arrive at a common source for RC theology. Catholic Encyclopedia okay with you?

 

[judechild]

So, Catholic Encyclopedia got it wrong?

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep.

That is incorrect? So, you still choose #1 today?

You know, the funniest thing in this matter is that I wrote down what in Correspondence Chess we call a "Conditional Move." A Conditional Move is when you are reasonably sure that you know what the next move your opponent will make, and so you write the next move(s) down and the move is automatically considered made once the opponent moves in the predicted fashion.

I knew that you would read the Catholic Enyclopedia on the matter; you usually fall back on that when you haven't researched something enough and your lack of knowledge on the subject is gradually being exposed. Itaque, I took the liberty of reading the entire article on Unam Sanctam, and on Papal Bulls, and then wrote my response ahead of time. Here is the response:

"Because I am sure that you will be waylaid by the term 'dogmatic' expressed in this article, I will point out that the article is not using the term to say that Unam Sanctam is a document whose teachings have been revealed by God (id est, a dogma of faith); rather, it is using it in the common definition of the word, which is roughly 'forceful declarations by one in authority.' It becomes obvious that the Catholic Encyclopedia considers the Bull historical in character when it concludes: 'In the struggles of the Gallican party against the authority of the Roman See, and also in the writings of non-Catholic authors against the definition of Papal Infallibility, the Bull "Unam Sanctam" was used against Boniface VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner not justified by its content. The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe.'"

Now, I must say that I am disappointed. I had thought you'd put up more of a fight than this. If this is the depth of your objections, then you're wasting your own time, and should probably focus your research on something that will actually benefit humanity's spiritual progress, rather than desperately throwing anything that you don't understand at the Catholic Church.

If that is the case, then I suggest that we move on again to another point from your post 108; this time concerning 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"? You've said quite a few things about it, and this is it: "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.)"

Now, there is a problem here. You've said what I believe, and you've said what you think that the Catholic Church believes... but you never have told me what you, yourself, believe. The irony here is that you were once so fond of accusing me of refusing to leave the "Roman Catholic point-of-view," but in reality it was you that never left what you thought the "Roman Catholic point-of-view" was. And so, I ask you, do you, yourself, by virtue of your own beliefs and practices, find any fault in the definition of "The Body in Heaven" as "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"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Now, for a quick interjection into your enlightening discussion.

IMO the Catholic Church has been very busy talking out of both sides of its mouth since Vatican II. I remember as a young lad, pre-Vatican II, when the Catholic Church consistently and vehemently insisted that it and it alone was the Church of God and there was no other. If one wished to escape Hell one had to be baptized in it and become a member of it. Even then all that did for one was provide a possibility that one might suffer for an untold period of time in the flames of Purgatory prior to being admitted to heaven.

Post-Vatican II all has changed, or has it really? The earlier mantra has been modified somewhat especially regarding Purgatory. Added to the mantra is a new mantra that members of "the sects" are Christians, albeit extremely inferior Christians and if they have not knowingly and willfully (whatever that might mean) rejected the Catholic Church they also have a possibility (remote as it might be) of going to Purgatory (which is now compared to a comfortable shower) prior to entering heaven.

When it comes to Saints, however, only those currently recognized by the Catholic Church are really Saints. Never mind the fact that the list has been modified and purged in the not-so-distant past and that other revered Saints from other Traditions are rejected by the Catholic Church. I suppose those folks are probably still in their shower stalls hoping for indulgences from the Catholic Church to open the shower door for them.

My apologies for the interruption. Please carry on.