Saturday, October 31, 2015

Summary of Responses to Lester Alberque

The "Community" section of BeliefNet went "read only" as of today.  I was hoping it was at the end of the day so I could post my final responses there - but it has already happened, so I will post my final replies to that forum here.  Participants there are free to continue here or join the Catholic Debate Forum (CDF) if they would prefer a more interactive online/email forum.

For Lester Alberque, aka:  AristotlesChild, I will summarize some of our recent discussions in this posting.  If a deeper discussion is desired, separate postings can be started, or Les can do what is necessary to return to posting in CDF.  There were more discussions, but

Is Original Sin Still a Catholic Dogma?

Oct 13, 2015 -- 10:34AM, AristotlesChild wrote:
Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:15PM, Cathapol wrote:

CA:  How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CA >>How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)<<

AC: Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

However, the second part about personal guilt (the "stain" that everybody had, except Mary) got dropped.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

So if none of Adam's descendents have the personal fault (or guilt, or stain) of Original Sin, we are all immaculate conceptiones, aren't we? There goes the dogma of (only Mary's) Immaculate Conception.
CA:  Wrong again!  Still within the context of the above:

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
CA:  So we clearly see that the "second part" from Trent is NOT dropped and is echoed by Pope Pius IX and in the modern CCC.

CA: I do thank you for conceding:

AC:  Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

CA:  And I add, "context" is not a "ploy" - it is a means of coming to the TRUTH by showing MORE of what was ACTUALLY SAID and, as usual, context betrays you, Les.  To what you did present, Original Sin is NOT about the "personal guilt" of "actual sin" it is about the inherited or hereditary sin of Adam, which is part of our fallen nature.  The only "ploy" here is the one whereby you tend to label anything which contradicts your fallen arguments as a ploy.

BOTTOM LINE:   The Dogma on Original Sin is still a dogma of the Catholic Faith, as it MUST be for once dogmatically defined - it cannot be "un-dogma'd."  

CA:  Nothing in ANY of Les' arguments proves that the Catholic Church has "changed" its position on this matter of dogma.  Les rationalizes a change, but in reality does not demonstrate.

Did Jesus Build His Church?

Les posits that He did not...
AC:  Jesus thought himself to be an end-time prophet who would return during his generation. See the New Testament. Obviously he did not.
His followers did not found a new Church, but remained observant Temple worshipping Jews (a sect within Judaism - see Acts) until the parting of the ways about 85 AD.

CA:  Nowhere do we have Scripture telling us that Christianity was a sect within Judaism.  The fact is, Jesus selected The Twelve who are our first bishops.  Those bishops passed on the authority Jesus gave to them to guide/lead His Sheep - with St. Peter given primacy.  We have that same structure to this day, regardless if they still went into the synagogues to worship and preach to the Jews - OR - of Les' rationalizations.  Jesus did indeed build His Church.

THE Fundamental Issue:  AUTHORITY

AC quotes:  "We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  [Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated November 18, 1302,]

Is this infallible? If so, do all Catholics have to believe this?

And any non-Catholics not subject to the Pope can’t be saved?

CA:  Well, that's not exactly what it says!  Just because some do not admit to being subject to the pope does not mean they aren't.  I know a few people who insist that President Obama is not their president - that doesn't make it not so.  That being said, some argue that Unam Sanctum is infallible, others argue it is not.  

AC adds:  And how about this?

 “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” [Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae  1890]

Do all Catholics in good standing believe this too?

CA:  Yes, Catholics in good standing need to be in submission and obedience to the will of the Church and to the pope, as to God Himself.  Now that would have limits.  I left out the word "complete" on purpose.  1) This is not an infallible statement and 2) if "obedience" is intrinsically evil or immoral then we would be obliged NOT to obey. 

AristotlesChild aka: LittleLes Says Good-Bye

AC:  It's about time to say good-bye. It's been fun!

I assume you'll be returning to your former websites where, as moderator, you have the authority to control all dialogue.

I'll be continuing on a number of different websites.

On the other hand (there are four fingers and a thumb!Laughing), maybe I'll start my own site where I can be the moderator and find was for deleting posters who disagree with my views, and have the authority, to do so! Apparently, Yahoo Groups is looking for a few good men!


AC/ formerly LL

CA:  Well, if this is good-bye, sobeit Les.  I came to BeliefNet at your invitation, but I'm not going to chase you around - you know where I am.  As for your allegation that I have "the authority to control all the websites" I run, well - again, except for the (which has no forums "on" it) I don't "run" the other "websites."  I do moderate forums on Yahoogroups and this blog on Blogger.  Yes, I DO have the authority to "control all dialog," but I don't.   I allow the free-flow of dialog unless someone breaks the rules.  You are one who broke the rules on the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups (CDF), so you were put on moderation.  The rule you broke was not documenting yourself - OR - you COULD have left your statement as it was and state it was your opinion (since you could not provide valid documentation).  You refused to withdraw the statement you made as fact, or state it was your opinion.  Your obstinate refusal to submit to the moderator request brought the moderation upon you - AND it is STILL within YOUR CONTROL to have that moderation removed!  You have three options:   1) Provide the documentation (which you've already admitted does not exist) or 2) retract your statement or 3) stand firm in your statement, that it is your belief - and your opinion.  Any one of those three options - and moderation would be removed (you're STILL a member of CDF, so you could go back to unmoderated posting immediately).

CA:  As I said, I will not be following Les to other forums - I joined BeliefNet basically after Les challenged that I could not withstand discussion with him in a forum I did not control - and he was proven wrong there too.  He knows where to find me - he knows how to have unmoderated access to CDF and he's not moderated here on the CathApol Blog.  It appears he'd rather be a self-declared martyr than come back to engage in valid discussion where we first met.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.