Patron saints

[narnia59]

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.

Not quite an accurate view of the Catholic church pre-Vatican II. The church did not then or ever say that only baptized Catholics were going to heaven. In fact, Father Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that very thing in 1949.

Leonard Feeney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Nope, no modification to the doctrine of Purgatory.

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.

The only "modification" to the list of saints I am aware of is the removal of certain saints from the universal church calendar -- i.e. they no longer have their own feast day in the universal church. That in no way implies they are no longer saints in heaven. Many people seem to be confused about that. So, I would be interested to see the list of saints who were once saints and have now been rejected, please.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

You've missed the point, which is explained in the previous paragraph at CE. You're trying to posit that the Bull is not dogmatic and does not apply to Christians (spiritual) by conflating its focus from spiritual to temporal. The truth is the Bull's opinion remained binding. It was simply "explained away" from a temporal POV. (It is true, however, that many post Vat II RCers now reattempt to also explain away its spiritual dogmatic POV.)

" In this way, Clement V was able to give France and its ruler a guarantee of security from the ecclesiastico-political results of the opinions elaborated in the Bull, while its dogmatic decision suffered no detriment of any kind."

What dogmatic decision?

"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. ... "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
The Bull is universal in character. "

So, now you've lost your queen in this discussion. Where does this leave us?

1) RC dogma is not applicable to Christians (unam sanctum is meaningless, which also undermines all of the Peter/Pope/RC notions.

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

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"?

Given you've lost your queen in the unam sanctum battle, I don't see a question or comment here about which to respond directly. I will reiterate what I have said; that is, we should follow what apostles, not bishops, said and didn't say. Moreover, the Bible is full of warnings about invoking the deceased. The problems are myriad and many have been mentioned (easter excommunication, heretical baptism permitted, etc).

 

[judechild]

You've missed the point, which is explained in the previous paragraph at CE. You're trying to posit that the Bull is not dogmatic and does not apply to Christians (spiritual) by conflating its focus from spiritual to temporal. The truth is the Bull's opinion remained binding.

Here you have managed to write many words and say nothing. "The truth is the Bull's opinion remained binding" is irrelevant, because I already said that it was binding: "A papal bull is an authoritative document" (

It was simply "explained away" from a temporal POV. (It is true, however, that many post Vat II RCers now reattempt to also explain away its spiritual dogmatic POV.)

There comes those "Roman Catholicers" again. You are ignoring the purpose of the Bull; I'll explain.

"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. ... "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
The Bull is universal in character. "

So, now you've lost your queen in this discussion. Where does this leave us?

You know, that pompousness sounds quite familiar; it's about the same tone you used to accuse me of re-defining "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only" and then to argue about it forever, until quitely letting it die out long after it was proven false - the same with your accusations of Argument ex Silentio and From Ignorence.

You've completely ignored the entire purpose of the Bull - to express the subservience of the temporal to the spiritual - and instead you are focusing on one part of it, and ignoring the rest of the bull and its purpose. While that is in keeping with your method in general, it does not help people to get to a knowledge of truth.

For instance, why did you stop your quotation at "The Bull is universal in character"? Going on further, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes what is the actual purpose of the Bull: "As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives." That is the purpose of the Bull, not to express in a final, dogmatic way what the state of all heretics and schimatics is.


More importantly, when you quoted: "In this way, Clement V was able to give France and its ruler a guarantee of security from the ecclesiastico-political results of the opinions elaborated in the Bull, while its dogmatic decision suffered no detriment of any kind." You missed the point that that "dogmatic decision" refers to the temporal subservience to the spiritual; two entences later, we read: "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."

All in all, I don't think you'd know a good move from a bad move. Are you going to deny that the purpose of the Bull is to express that the temporal authority is under the spiritual authority?

Given you've lost your queen in the unam sanctum battle, I don't see a question or comment here about which to respond directly. I will reiterate what I have said; that is, we should follow what apostles, not bishops, said and didn't say. Moreover, the Bible is full of warnings about invoking the deceased. The problems are myriad and many have been mentioned (easter excommunication, heretical baptism permitted, etc).

Chicken.

 

[Standing Up]

Here you have managed to write many words and say nothing. "The truth is the Bull's opinion remained binding" is irrelevant, because I already said that it was binding: "A papal bull is an authoritative document"-snip-.

Clearly your semantics are getting in the way. Rather than reset the game board, I'll present the two endings again and again explain your definitional problem.

1) RC dogma is not applicable to Christians (unam sanctum is meaningless, which also undermines all of the Peter/Pope/RC notions).

2) RC dogma is applicable to Christians (unam sanctum-your salvation hinges on your submission to the pope at Rome remains).


JuCh-"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"? "

SU- we still don't know anything about this supposed Body in Heaven. We don't know its members or how and if they're there. As such, to pray to it, is to invite so many issues into the Body on earth. 'Course given Unam Sanctum, Vat II, and all the other issues already raised, we don't know about that either.

 

[judechild]

Clearly your semantics are getting in the way. Rather than reset the game board, I'll present the two endings again and again explain your definitional problem.

Oh trust me, semantics are not getting in my way. You are failing to stike an important distinction between dogma and authority. Dogma necessarily implies authority, but not all authoritative documents are dogma.

No, it is semantics that are getting in your way. You've predicated your entire case on the word "dogmatically" which was written in a ninety-six-year-old encyclopedia (which has a newer edition, by the way), and so you have moved from talking about Unam Sanctam itself, to talking about an article talking about Unam Sanctam. The problem comes from your treatment of the Second Vatican Council. When I quoted from that Council's document Lumen Gentium, you responded: "Vat II didn't form any dogmas." But the full name of Lumen Gentium is: "Lumen Gentium, or, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church." Ergo, if you are going to take every descriptive use of the word "dogmatic" as an indicator that it is "part of the definitive, irrevolkable teaching of the Catholic Church" then you will at least need to change your views on Vatican II.

1) RC dogma is not applicable to Christians (unam sanctum is meaningless, which also undermines all of the Peter/Pope/RC notions).

2) RC dogma is applicable to Christians (unam sanctum-your salvation hinges on your submission to the pope at Rome remains).

You see, Catholics are very patriotic, but not all documents are created equal. The Pope is a man in authority - that is undeniable. Both the French King, and the Catholic Church recognized the authority of the Pope, and so he had every reason to write a Bull. The Bull was authoritative, but it was meant to express the subservience of the temporal authority to the spiritual; it was not treating salvation as a whole. As such, it was not dogma; it was authoritative, but not divinely revealed. Add to that that a Papal Bull has never been the means by which a Pope has defined a dogma. Finally, the definition of Papal Infallibililty from the First Vatican Council is pencil-thin, and it excludes this Bull from that special protection of the Petrine Office.

That being said, Pope Boniface was a very intelligent man. Unam Sanctam is well-reasoned, and the argument unfolds simply and logically and ultimately culminates in an appropriate fashion. If you argued a point half as well as Boniface does, you might actually convince me of a few things.

So put that gun down - the scope's off, and you'll hit no birds that way. Your choice are based on a fatal lack of a distinction.

SU- we still don't know anything about this supposed Body in Heaven. We don't know its members or how and if they're there. As such, to pray to it, is to invite so many issues into the Body on earth. 'Course given Unam Sanctum, Vat II, and all the other issues already raised, we don't know about that either.

While it is not true that "we still don't know anything about this supposed Body in Heaven," if my definition is true, I'll atomize it and see where we can get. Your only objection seems to be that you don't know who's there - but we said we know of at least one person: Stephan. And so, let's take him, and see if we can learn anything about the Body in Heaven from him. Starting with this: has Stephan been particularly judged?

 

[Standing Up]

Oh trust me, semantics are not getting in my way. You are failing to stike an important distinction between dogma and authority. Dogma necessarily implies authority, but not all authoritative documents are dogma.

No, it is semantics that are getting in your way. You've predicated your entire case on the word "dogmatically" which was written in a ninety-six-year-old encyclopedia (which has a newer edition, by the way), and so you have moved from talking about Unam Sanctam itself, to talking about an article talking about Unam Sanctam. The problem comes from your treatment of the Second Vatican Council. When I quoted from that Council's document Lumen Gentium, you responded: "Vat II didn't form any dogmas." But the full name of Lumen Gentium is: "Lumen Gentium, or, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church." Ergo, if you are going to take every descriptive use of the word "dogmatic" as an indicator that it is "part of the definitive, irrevolkable teaching of the Catholic Church" then you will at least need to change your views on Vatican II.



You see, Catholics are very patriotic, but not all documents are created equal. The Pope is a man in authority - that is undeniable. Both the French King, and the Catholic Church recognized the authority of the Pope, and so he had every reason to write a Bull. The Bull was authoritative, but it was meant to express the subservience of the temporal authority to the spiritual; it was not treating salvation as a whole. As such, it was not dogma; it was authoritative, but not divinely revealed. Add to that that a Papal Bull has never been the means by which a Pope has defined a dogma. Finally, the definition of Papal Infallibililty from the First Vatican Council is pencil-thin, and it excludes this Bull from that special protection of the Petrine Office.

That being said, Pope Boniface was a very intelligent man. Unam Sanctam is well-reasoned, and the argument unfolds simply and logically and ultimately culminates in an appropriate fashion. If you argued a point half as well as Boniface does, you might actually convince me of a few things.

So put that gun down - the scope's off, and you'll hit no birds that way. Your choice are based on a fatal lack of a distinction.

Birds on the chess table? As CE explained, the subsequent explanation mollified the king, but the RC dogma of salvation by submission to the pope at Rome remained. If, however, you simply want to reiterate you agree with #1, shorten your verbiage to a simple yes.

While it is not true that "we still don't know anything about this supposed Body in Heaven," if my definition is true, I'll atomize it and see where we can get. Your only objection seems to be that you don't know who's there - but we said we know of at least one person: Stephan. And so, let's take him, and see if we can learn anything about the Body in Heaven from him. Starting with this: has Stephan been particularly judged?

Except we don't know. Unam Sanctum is merely one in a list of noted problems. As to Stephen particularly, he observed passover on the 14th on whatever day of the week it fell. Councils excommunicated those who did that. For my part, I haven't worked through the implications enough to comment further, except to again ask you to make a choice.

1) RC dogma and EC decisions are not applicable to Christians (unam sanctum is meaningless, which also undermines all of the Peter/Pope/RC notions).
​

2) RC dogma and EC decisions are applicable to Christians (unam sanctum-your salvation hinges on your submission to the pope at Rome remains).
​

Having wrote that, I hoped to move this ahead, but instead fail to move things ahead because of the contradictory nature of RC and EC things (filioque is the obvious example). We're still stuck.

So, as far as I'm concerned, its best to simply go with what apostles said and didn't say. Ask the living for prayer.

 

[judechild]

Birds on the chess table? As CE explained, the subsequent explanation mollified the king, but the RC dogma of salvation by submission to the pope at Rome remained. If, however, you simply want to reiterate you agree with #1, shorten your verbiage to a simple yes.

That would definitely be a part of your problem; you're looking for birds on the chess board - or in this case, dogmas in papal bulls.

As for your request for a simple "yes," I cannot for two reasons. The first reason is that, were I to say "yes," it is unclear which option I'll be approving, since you change the options and their markers as often as most people change shirts. The second reason is that I've already sufficiently explained the difference between dogma and authority, hence an affirmation of the authority of the bull is not an affirmation of a dogmatic character. If you have something to the contrary, say it.

The Bull's entire argument is that the spiritual authority is superior to the temporal authority. If there's going to be dogma that comes out of it, then there would have to be dogma related to the argument. But you are saying that dogma comes out of this Bull which is not directly related to the argument. And that is your problem; you're looking for birds on a chess board.

Except we don't know. Unam Sanctum is merely one in a list of noted problems. As to Stephen particularly, he observed passover on the 14th on whatever day of the week it fell. Councils excommunicated those who did that. For my part, I haven't worked through the implications enough to comment further, except to again ask you to make a choice.

No no, we do know; we agreed, remember? You're still not letting go of what you think is the "Catholic point-of-view;" ironic, isn't it? What you're not understanding is that, in relation to this discussion, the Catholic Church may be totally wrong, and it won't matter. This is because we are looking at the question of whether praying to the Saints is a part of Apostolic teaching; the fact that the Catholic Church answers in the affirmative is only assessory to the discussion. I will gradually disprove your other claims, just like I have disproven three of your claims against me, but in the meantime let's not slow down. You are talking to me, not to the Catholic Church. And whether you like it or not, you've agreed to five axiomatic statements and a definition, and you've agreed that Stephan is in Heaven.

Now, I'm pleasantly surprised that you're going to think about something before you make a statement on it, but do you have some reason to doubt that Stephan has been particularly judged?

Having wrote that, I hoped to move this ahead, but instead fail to move things ahead because of the contradictory nature of RC and EC things (filioque is the obvious example). We're still stuck.

That is ridiculous. You can say that Catholic dogma is contradictory, but so far you'e been proven wrong three times; one would think that that would encourage you to weaken your dogmatism.
​

[qutoe]So, as far as I'm concerned, its best to simply go with what apostles said and didn't say. Ask the living for prayer.[/quote]

This is ironic, considering that you have not quoted Scripture once. I supported each of my axioms with Scripture, hence I seem to be going by "what the Apostles said." Now, as for going by what they "didn't say," I can only point out that that is absurd. You cannot go by what someone doesn't say; silence is a non-argument, because it is the lack of evidence. You've already learned that, so bringing it up again will not help you.

 

[Standing Up]

That would definitely be a part of your problem; you're looking for birds on the chess board - or in this case, dogmas in papal bulls.

As for your request for a simple "yes," I cannot for two reasons. The first reason is that, were I to say "yes," it is unclear which option I'll be approving, since you change the options and their markers as often as most people change shirts. The second reason is that I've already sufficiently explained the difference between dogma and authority, hence an affirmation of the authority of the bull is not an affirmation of a dogmatic character. If you have something to the contrary, say it.

The Bull's entire argument is that the spiritual authority is superior to the temporal authority. If there's going to be dogma that comes out of it, then there would have to be dogma related to the argument. But you are saying that dogma comes out of this Bull which is not directly related to the argument. And that is your problem; you're looking for birds on a chess board.

You can keep claiming a point, we can keep saying the other wrong, but your history is on my side of the board, toppling your bishops and castles. No queen defense, as it were.

"(It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unam Sanctam

Ready to call it? If not, bring up something new or at least clearly confirm your agreement with #1--RC dogma is meaningless for all Christians-- and then we can play a game of checkers.

No no, we do know; we agreed, remember?

No, we don't agree anymore. Your axioms make no sense.

You're still not letting go of what you think is the "Catholic point-of-view;" ironic, isn't it? What you're not understanding is that, in relation to this discussion, the Catholic Church may be totally wrong, and it won't matter. This is because we are looking at the question of whether praying to the Saints is a part of Apostolic teaching; the fact that the Catholic Church answers in the affirmative is only assessory to the discussion. I will gradually disprove your other claims, just like I have disproven three of your claims against me, but in the meantime let's not slow down. You are talking to me, not to the Catholic Church. And whether you like it or not, you've agreed to five axiomatic statements and a definition, and you've agreed that Stephan is in Heaven.

Posthumous excommunication still stands.
Unam Sanctum still stands.
And all the rest of the issues brought up still stand.

This is ironic, considering that you have not quoted Scripture once. I supported each of my axioms with Scripture, hence I seem to be going by "what the Apostles said." Now, as for going by what they "didn't say," I can only point out that that is absurd. You cannot go by what someone doesn't say; silence is a non-argument, because it is the lack of evidence. You've already learned that, so bringing it up again will not help you.

Again, your axioms do not make sense. Best to go with what apostles said and didn't say. We can agree they said, Ask the living on earth for prayer.

The word "pray(er)(s)" is used 545 times in the KJV. Not once is it directed to the deceased, but always in reference to the living. Pray to God the Father.

 

[Standing Up]

Just to knock over the couple last pawns. On pope de fide stuff. What's the latin for "stuff"?

"The 12th-century Decretum Gratiani contained the declaration by Pope Gregory I (590-604) that the first four ecumenical councils were to be revered "like the four gospels", because they had been "established by universal consent", "

Oops. There goes from the body Mary, Peter, and Paul re easter.

"
The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma: that of petrine supremacy of the pope, and his authority to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The clearest example (though not the only one)[4] of the use of this power, referred to as speaking ex cathedra[5] expressed since the solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.[6] This authority is considered by Catholics to be apostolic and of divine origin. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,[7][8][9] Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441,[10][11][12] and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[13][14] have all spoken "ex cathedra"."

Game over.

Checkers anyone?

 

[judechild]

You can keep claiming a point, we can keep saying the other wrong, but your history is on my side of the board, toppling your bishops and castles. No queen defense, as it were.

"(It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unam Sanctam

Ready to call it? If not, bring up something new or at least clearly confirm your agreement with #1--RC dogma is meaningless for all Christians-- and then we can play a game of checkers.

Nope, you're still missing the point. In the first place, you do know that the Catholic Enyclopedia is not an official source of Church teaching, right? In the second, now you've really done it; you've promoted my queen for me. You've taken the dogma away from Unam Sanctam, and placed it on the Ecumenical Council (by the way, I was wondering how many incentives I had to give you, before you'd read the article in its entirety). It says "it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516" (your emphasis).

By finally posting the bit about the Lateran Council, you've put the doctrine in the hands of the Council, not the Bull. A Bull does not have dogmatic weight - for example, it was a Papal Bull that suppressed the Jesuits. The suppression of the Jesuits was not a matter of dogma; dogma is a divinely-revealed teaching, and "the Jesuits are dissolved" is not a teaching. A bull is at its core a non-doctrinal document; it is an administrative or remonstrative one.

Now, in regard to what it means to be united with the Roman Pontiff, there is room for development. In the meantime, you've shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging that the doctrinal authority comes from the Council, not from the Bull. Hence, you'll need to shift your focus; it is a red herring to continue with Unam Sanctam.

Your main problem throughout this whole thing is that you don't know the nuances, but are still claiming to know them. It's the same thing as the person who wants to discredit the Bible, and points to things like "A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever" (Eccl 1:4) and "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Mt. 24:35). That person doesn't care to know the different contexts and nuances; he just wants to tear down something he does know or care to understand.

The fact of the matter is that the Bull is still not talking about membership in the Church, but rather the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual. If a dogma were being proclaimed, the entire document would be about the subject matter. There are never accidental dogmas.

No, we don't agree anymore. Your axioms make no sense.

Saying that a person who remains in the Body of Christ will do so after death makes no sense? You agreed, and you failed every time to prove that I changed the definition of "Christian." Since you failed to do that, and predicated your desperate rear-guard by whining that I'd changed the definition, your agreement is still there. It will always be there, until you can show that I changed the definition; but you've given up. So it will remain forever.

Again, your axioms do not make sense. Best to go with what apostles said and didn't say. We can agree they said, Ask the living on earth for prayer.

The word "pray(er)(s)" is used 545 times in the KJV. Not once is it directed to the deceased, but always in reference to the living. Pray to God the Father.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you find "a Christian who has died remains alive in Christ" to make no sense.

And about "all the other issues" still standing; don't flatter yourself. They are all as groundless as the ones that you're insisting on now. We'll get to them later.

 

[judechild]

Just to knock over the couple last pawns. On pope de fide stuff. What's the latin for "stuff"?

"The 12th-century Decretum Gratiani contained the declaration by Pope Gregory I (590-604) that the first four ecumenical councils were to be revered "like the four gospels", because they had been "established by universal consent", "

Oops. There goes from the body Mary, Peter, and Paul re easter.

Res.

You've proved nothing. In fact, your rhetoric doesn't establish anything, since you have to assume that first of all post-mortem excommunication exists in the sense that you and I are talking about, secondly that the quartodeciemians were excommunicated for the very reason of keeping Easter on the 14th (rather than because it was appropriate that the entire Church keep the same day), thirdly that the quartodecimians were excommunicated posthumously, and fourthly that Mary, Peter, and Paul were quartodecimians (and since you haven't even been able to accurately present what the Pope of today thinks on current issues, in books published only a year or two ago, why should you trust yourself to know what people 2000 years ago in a philosophical and cultural tradition different from your own thought?)

...Game over.

... You quote Wikipedia, and declare that it's "game over." That's a new scholarly low, even for you. But it doesn't matter, because you've already taken the doctrinal authority away from Unam Sanctam, and placed it on the Council. Which means that it is not the Bull that is the vehicle for infallibility.

If you cared to look, you would see that the list given is from a single theologian named Klaus Schaltz. What do you know of Klaus Schaltz? Why is he a definitive source? Is his book in favor of, or against the doctrinal of Papal Infallibility? Do you know the answers to any of these questions?

 

[Standing Up]

Res.

You've proved nothing. In fact, your rhetoric doesn't establish anything, since you have to assume that first of all post-mortem excommunication exists in the sense that you and I are talking about, secondly that the quartodeciemians were excommunicated for the very reason of keeping Easter on the 14th (rather than because it was appropriate that the entire Church keep the same day), thirdly that the quartodecimians were excommunicated posthumously, and fourthly that Mary, Peter, and Paul were quartodecimians (and since you haven't even been able to accurately present what the Pope of today thinks on current issues, in books published only a year or two ago, why should you trust yourself to know what people 2000 years ago in a philosophical and cultural tradition different from your own thought?)



... You quote Wikipedia, and declare that it's "game over." That's a new scholarly low, even for you. But it doesn't matter, because you've already taken the doctrinal authority away from Unam Sanctam, and placed it on the Council. Which means that it is not the Bull that is the vehicle for infallibility.

If you cared to look, you would see that the list given is from a single theologian named Klaus Schaltz. What do you know of Klaus Schaltz? Why is he a definitive source? Is his book in favor of, or against the doctrinal of Papal Infallibility? Do you know the answers to any of these questions?

Don't shoot the messenger. EC said the same res.

 

[Standing Up]

Nope, you're still missing the point. In the first place, you do know that the Catholic Enyclopedia is not an official source of Church teaching, right?

Recall I said we need to agree on official RC source.

In the second, now you've really done it; you've promoted my queen for me. You've taken the dogma away from Unam Sanctam, and placed it on the Ecumenical Council (by the way, I was wondering how many incentives I had to give you, before you'd read the article in its entirety). It says "it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516" (your emphasis).

By finally posting the bit about the Lateran Council, you've put the doctrine in the hands of the Council, not the Bull. A Bull does not have dogmatic weight - for example, it was a Papal Bull that suppressed the Jesuits. The suppression of the Jesuits was not a matter of dogma; dogma is a divinely-revealed teaching, and "the Jesuits are dissolved" is not a teaching. A bull is at its core a non-doctrinal document; it is an administrative or remonstrative one.

No one but RC believes any council is still ecumenical after 1054. Point is your council declared the same point as your bull.

Given no one even thought that prior to those times, it simply presents another problem to your axioms.

Now, in regard to what it means to be united with the Roman Pontiff, there is room for development. In the meantime, you've shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging that the doctrinal authority comes from the Council, not from the Bull. Hence, you'll need to shift your focus; it is a red herring to continue with Unam Sanctam.

Your main problem throughout this whole thing is that you don't know the nuances, but are still claiming to know them. It's the same thing as the person who wants to discredit the Bible, and points to things like "A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever" (Eccl 1:4) and "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Mt. 24:35). That person doesn't care to know the different contexts and nuances; he just wants to tear down something he does know or care to understand.

The fact of the matter is that the Bull is still not talking about membership in the Church, but rather the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual. If a dogma were being proclaimed, the entire document would be about the subject matter. There are never accidental dogmas.



Saying that a person who remains in the Body of Christ will do so after death makes no sense? You agreed, and you failed every time to prove that I changed the definition of "Christian." Since you failed to do that, and predicated your desperate rear-guard by whining that I'd changed the definition, your agreement is still there. It will always be there, until you can show that I changed the definition; but you've given up. So it will remain forever.



I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you find "a Christian who has died remains alive in Christ" to make no sense.

And about "all the other issues" still standing; don't flatter yourself. They are all as groundless as the ones that you're insisting on now. We'll get to them later.

No, I'm pretty much done riding the roundabout with you. There's no sense in reiteration.

 

[judechild]

Don't shoot the messenger. EC said the same res.

I don't shoot the messenger; I shoot birds, remember? In fact, on this thread there were three rather thin birds that I was able to take home to mama.

 

[judechild]

Recall I said we need to agree on official RC source.

So you did, but you don't know what makes an official Catholic source, considering the documents of the Second Vatican Council are certainly "higher" than the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not a document from the Magistarium), but you tried to shunt them aside. We don't need your agreement to know what is an official source of Catholic teaching.

No one but RC believes any council is still ecumenical after 1054. Point is your council declared the same point as your bull.

Both statements are irrelevant. The first because whether or not the Council is ecumenical does not depend on agreement. The second is that the "point" is not that the Council declared the same point as the Bull. The "point" is that the Bull is not the vehicle for Papal authority.

Given no one even thought that prior to those times, it simply presents another problem to your axioms.

That is not true, it has long been considered that persons outside the visible confines of the Church can be saved; it also has been considereed that heretics can still be Christians.

No, I'm pretty much done riding the roundabout with you. There's no sense in reiteration.

I'm inclined to agree that reiterating will not get us much further. I suppose we'll have to leave this issue incomplete. It is rather disappointing, though. Oh well... at least we established that Saint Stephan is still within the Body of Christ, which is identical to the Church, as an alive, individualized member; hence he is still a Christia. All of which is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints. We just didn't get to the fun stuff, like what the Church is in its particulars, the nature of a society of persons, or the inter-personal nature of the entire Body of Christ.

Salutem dicit! Vale!

 

[Standing Up]

So you did, but you don't know what makes an official Catholic source, considering the documents of the Second Vatican Council are certainly "higher" than the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not a document from the Magistarium), but you tried to shunt them aside. We don't need your agreement to know what is an official source of Catholic teaching.



Both statements are irrelevant. The first because whether or not the Council is ecumenical does not depend on agreement. The second is that the "point" is not that the Council declared the same point as the Bull. The "point" is that the Bull is not the vehicle for Papal authority.



That is not true, it has long been considered that persons outside the visible confines of the Church can be saved; it also has been considereed that heretics can still be Christians.



I'm inclined to agree that reiterating will not get us much further. I suppose we'll have to leave this issue incomplete. It is rather disappointing, though. Oh well... at least we established that Saint Stephan is still within the Body of Christ, which is identical to the Church, as an alive, individualized member; hence he is still a Christia. All of which is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints. We just didn't get to the fun stuff, like what the Church is in its particulars, the nature of a society of persons, or the inter-personal nature of the entire Body of Christ.

Salutem dicit! Vale!

I don't know whether to or

The part about Stephen was long ago requestioned. At this stage there is nothing we agree about.

Check-

Good bye
Adios
Ciao
Shalom
Xudaafiz
Tata
Do-na-da-go-hv-i

say good-bye in the vernacular-
http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/goodbye.htm

-mate

 

[judechild]

I don't know whether to or

The part about Stephen was long ago requestioned. At this stage there is nothing we agree about.

If it was "requestioned," then you changed your mind fundamentally; because I didn't change anything from when it was originally agreed upon (you tried to prove I did, remember, and couldn't). If you're saying that you take it back for no reason, that is fine, but it further weakens any claim to credibility that you have.

say good-bye in the vernacular-
"Goodbye" in many languages

-mate

Why on Earth would I say goodbye in English? That is so very boring. Although, I do have to wonder how, if we agree on nothing, you can claim to have won anything; particularly when you can't make up your mind what you do or do not believe in reference to the Axioms which have not been changed since the time you agreed to them.

Oh well. In a year or so we'll probably take up some point or another of this again, and you'll retract everything, just like you've done twice before when talking with me in previous threads. In other words, my dear Gary Kasparov, I wouldn't claim checkmate when we're just taking an adjurnment.