January 21, 2023 at 7:56 am #2536EugenGuest
Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning alone. One kind of causal fallacy consists in mistaking a necessary condition (conditio sine qua non) for a sufficient condition (conditio per quam). Imagine a proposition of the form  “A cannot be effected without B or C.” It formulates a necessary condition which is not at the same time a sufficient condition. It does not signify any of
– A is effected given B.
– A is effected given C.
– A is effected given B and C.
Neither B alone, nor C alone, nor B and C may be sufficient for A to be effected. Proposition  does not list sufficient prerequisites for A to be effected, rather it lists necessary prerequisites, without which A cannot be effected.
Reading on, after chapter IV of the decree on Justification Cum hoc tempore (Council of Trent, 6th session), through chapters V, VI, and VII one finds more preconditions necessary for A to be effected.
Side note: The proem of the decree says that the “sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent” is “most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared in this present decree.”
January 21, 2023 at 9:00 am #2537
What is the context and relevance of this apparently random lesson on logic? I am sure other readers are as baffled as myself.
January 21, 2023 at 10:34 am #2542EugenGuest
Please forgive me, I should be more verbose than I regrettably am most of the time.
Chapter IV of the decree on Justification of the Council of Trent is one of the more frequently debated pieces of Church teaching of our times. But virtually no one seems to be aware of the said logical fallacy (with respect to the “translation not effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof”). Just like question of the consummatio saeculi, it is an easy to understand topic, and eye opening.
January 21, 2023 at 3:50 pm #2566
I am not sure what the takeaway is here, but then my familiarity with those chapters of Trent is less than thorough. Perhaps, when you bring up a topic here, try to give a little context for it, and what you are arguing for or commenting on or questioning; that way, meaningful and constructive discussion may follow. I am sure I am not the only one who hasn’t a clue what you are trying to say with this.
January 21, 2023 at 10:35 am #2543EugenGuest
Correction: Just like the question of …
January 21, 2023 at 6:55 pm #2567EugenGuest
Robert Robbins wrote: “I am not sure what the takeaway is here, but then my familiarity with those chapters of Trent is less than thorough.”
Chapter IV of the decree on justification of the Council of Trent, Cum hoc tempore, 6th session, has four or five lines of text, and basically says “A cannot be effected without B or C” where the A, B, and C signify:
A: translation (from the state of iniquity to the state of justification)
B: the laver of regeneration
C: the desire thereof
Hosts of all sorts of “trads” have flooded the internet in the past decades with claims that consequently A is effected by C alone.
My excursus on basic logic reveals their drivel as hogwash.
January 21, 2023 at 7:37 pm #2569
I am not privy to which Trads hold such a view, but I know that it is the view of Saint Thomas Aquinas—and subsequently the entire Church—that the desire for baptism is sufficient apart from the sacrament itself to justify one, if such a desire is understood to be an act of perfection contrition and charity.
Please do not tell me you are a BOD denier, are you?
January 22, 2023 at 4:47 am #2570EugenGuest
I follow logic and reason and Catholic principles. The Council of Trent “most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared in this present decree”, I obey.
January 22, 2023 at 8:26 am #2571
“In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance,” (ST. III. Q. 66.11).
Any number of madmen and self-deluded lunatics believed in logic, Eugen. Now the application of principles is quite another thing, which one is very much apt to make a mistake in doing. All you need to do, being a mere layman, is obey the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Now, the Council of Trent folllowed the teachings of St. Thomas, even placing the Summa along side the Bible on the altar. Do you reject St. Thomas where the Council Fathers openly accepted him?
Do you or do you not deny BOD?
January 22, 2023 at 4:10 pm #2572EugenGuest
I believe everything proposed to be believed by the Magisterium of the Church. Theologians, on the other hand, even theologians who are Saints, (as such) are not the Magisterium of the Church. Rather they are scientist, dealing with a sacred but fallible science.
The decree on Justification of the Council of Trent is relevant with respect to the Justification of adults. It doesn’t condemn theological speculations on baptism of desire per se. It doesn’t teach any variant of baptism of desire. It forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else beside what it teaches on justification of adults. The Profession of Faith of the Vatican Council includes belief in all which the Council of Trent taught, particularly with respect to justification.
There is one single statement used by many theologians to claim that the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. The problem is: they misunderstand a necessary as a sufficient condition for justification. A logical fallacy. This has been noticed and recorded in the 16th and 17th centuries already.
I won’t answer your question “do you deny BOD”. You could as well ask whether I spanked my wife today already. I reject theological speculations on baptism of the desire, because the Council of Trent forbids me to believe them.
January 22, 2023 at 4:44 pm #2573
“I believe everything proposed to be believed by the Magisterium of the Church.”
Then you have no reason to deny, or by implication deny, BOD, since the Magisterium of the Church teaches it in its official catechisms:
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
It is preposterous to say that the Council of Trent forbids you to speculate about BOD when St. Thomas teaches BOD in the Summa, one of the documents by which the Council came to its conclusions of its canons.
Anyway, if you do not submit your will and intellect to the Baltimore Catechism, or whichever approved catechism is proper to where you live, then you are not Catholic, Eugen, but an obstinate heretic who thinks you know more than the Church, simply because you may have read a book on logic.
January 22, 2023 at 4:52 pm #2574
Fair warning: Do not presume to interpret the sacred canons of Trent:
“BULL OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD PIUS IV., BY PROVIDENCE OF GOD, POPE, TOUCHING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE OECUMENICAL (AND) GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT,” we read the following:
Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were allowed, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the Council ; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all men, as well ecclesiastics, of whatsoever order, condition, and rank they may be, as also laymen, with whatsoever honor and power invested ; prelates, to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others whomsoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact, to presume, without our authority to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of the said Council ; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea whatsoever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the more perfect execution thereof, or under any other colour whatsoever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained in an obscure manner, and it shall appear to stand in need on that account of an interpretation or decision, let him Go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen; to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy Synod also has so reverently acknowledged.
January 22, 2023 at 7:17 pm #2575EugenGuest
Robert Robbins wrote:
[Eugen:] “I believe everything proposed to be believed by the Magisterium of the Church.”
Baltimore Catechism […]
The Council of Trent is infallible, the Baltimore Catechism isn’t. May the Lord have mercy on the author(s) of the Baltimore Catechism who had a duty to know that they are forbidden to teach, preach, or believe otherwise than the Council of Trent teaches on the first-time justification of adults.
Robert Robbins wrote:
Fair warning: Do not presume to interpret the sacred canons of Trent:
It seems that you misunderstand what Pope Pius IV. says. He adds to what the Council of Trent says and doesn’t contradict.
The General of Trent, Twenty-Third Session wrote:
But [the holy Synod] hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the rule of faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.
The Council of Trent says “to all men” that we are called to know “the rule of faith in the midst of the darkness of so many errors,” for the purpose to “more easily be able to recognise and to hold Catholic truth.” Hence, we need to know and understand the teaching of the Council of Trent to be able to recognize the Baltimore Catechism as utter darkness and eclipse. Pope Pius IV. does not contradict this teaching.
Pope Pius IV. adds punishments to the prohibition of the Council of Trent in the decree of justification. The Council of Trent forbids to teach, preach, or believe anything else than what is taught by the Council itself on justification. Pope Pius IV. adds interdiction for prelates and ipso facto excommunication for all others.
You post the Baltimore Catechism, and then aptly the condemnation of the same Catechism by Pope Pius IV.
Looking through several dozens of treatises of theologians of the 16th century, it’s easy to see what Pope Pius IV. is talking about. More than roughly 95% say words to the effect: look! it says
voto', that signifiesthree baptisms’. Or look!
cannot without lavacro aut eius voto', that meanscan with lavacro aut eius voto’. A minority only explains and rejects the predominant poor logic.
Let’s come back to the topic: Do you agree that the wording “cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” does formulate a necessary condition and not at all a sufficient condition? Do you accept or reject common sense? Do you reject or accept false and nonsensical logic?
January 22, 2023 at 7:21 pm #2576EugenGuest
Robert, please publish the rules used by your software to format text.
January 22, 2023 at 7:39 pm #2581
I don’t have rules, because my host is WordPress, which writes up the coding. I’m not that tech.
January 22, 2023 at 7:47 pm #2582
I am not going to logically analyze and pass judgment on a canon of that Catholic Church’s ecumenical council, which is expressly forbidden by the aforementioned Bull. I am going to accept legitimate catechisms promulgated for my spiritual welfare which teach that BOD is true, as well as the ST which teaches it as well. (I believe the Roman Catechism, that is, the Catechism of Trent also teaches it, but I am not certain. Perhaps someone can pipe up and cite that.)
I am quite sorry I have given you and your false, anti-Catholic views space here on Galaxy Forum. I do not regret your article being published, because I think you make a decent point there, though I would prefer a different analysis which does not rest on words but the will of God in relation to man.
I will allow you to post here and there if what you do post has nothing to do with the heretical position of denial of baptism of desire, since it is an article of the faith which the BC obviously teaches (and so heresy to deny).
Since it sounds like you are pretty tech-savvy, you should go and make up your own website where you can be more free with your heretical opinions.
I believe that the last Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church was Pius XII. Presumably, you think we haven’t had a pope in like three or four centuries. That is preposterous.
January 22, 2023 at 8:13 pm #2583EugenGuest
I think, it’s a fundamental error to base your faith on a Catechism of one diocese in the masonic new world, and to abstain from using the rules of faith as promulgated by an ecumenical Council of the Church. Same Council recommending to use their rule of faith to measure truth. I will pray for you, good bye!
January 22, 2023 at 8:34 pm #2584
The BC wasn’t promulgated by a diocese but by a plenary council of bishops—the biggest in the world, actually, in communion with and with the approbation of the Holy See.
The fact is, Eugen, you interpret the sacred canons according to your own, in direct violation of a Bull which forbids it, while spurning the very means by which you ought to learn your faith, your local and legitimate catechism.
Tell me, what catechism did you learn the faith by? What catechism do you think is free from Masonic error?
You are, of course, free never to visit this website again, but I would like to know which catechism YOU have given your approbation.
January 22, 2023 at 8:54 pm #2585EugenGuest
The basis of Catholic reasoning is common sense and commonly accepted logic. There is no Catholic debate without these. Next thing is: there are indisputable divine truths and Catholic truths, proposed by the Magisterium to all Catholics to believe. You, on the other hand, prefer a “Baltimore Catechism” over an infallible ecumenical Council. Well, I guess that’s America.
January 22, 2023 at 10:31 pm #2586
Those Divine and Catholic truths of the Magisterium proposed to us to be worthy of belief are precisely those truths found in catechisms. But, you won’t tell me which catechism you actual submit your intellect and will to. Instead you take it upon yourself to interpret the sacred canons by putting them through your little logic testing machine, to discover the truths you are to believe, while at the same time repudiating the very means by which the Church has provided to teach you the actual truths of the faith. You, sir, are a heretic, because you choose what you are to believe, and where you are to go to believe it. Just because you do not go straight to the Bible does not make you any less like the Protestants in this regard of prizing your own opinion over the Teaching Church.
And it is not “American” to have one’s faith formed by catechisms. It is Catholic.
- This topic has 19 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by .
Viewing 12 reply threads
Viewing 12 reply threads