If you are going to continue to cut and paste your responses you need to cite the sources. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.
I find your claim of limited infallibility complete disingenuous. Infallibility is a binary property; you are either infallible or you are not, and clearly are not.
You continue to tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on the Catholic Church, yet you demand that I concede that ability to you as a condition of your preaching to me. While I will concede your motives may be inerrant your message isn't.
Catholics believe that when Jesus founded His Church he endowed it with the ability and the mission to compile canon, preserve, defend, and teach the Revealed Word. God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted. They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Church is merely the custodian. God made men the instrument of his revealed Word just as he made other the Church its infallible guardian and interpreter. So let's just agree to disagree.
Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
daniel1212, if you pull a sourced quote from a website, then also include the url or link.
And we are castigating others for no sources?
If you are going to continue to cut and paste your responses you need to cite the sources. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.
The plagiarized excerpt itself contains a properly cited quote from " Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5.
Natural, you can again resort to false charges, and your usual unwarranted dismissals and complaints about pasting that which refutes you, while refusing to answer pertinent questions, but the more you post the more you are avoid the implication of your lack of certitude, and that statements by you are are contradicted by your brethren, and now other sources as well.
Beginning with the latter, you
1.You charge me with plagiarism and copyright infringement for citing Bellarmine, which is absolutely ludicrous and potentially libelous. The fact is that plagiarism is defined as “the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person,” (Merriam-Webster) though as WP substantiates, “the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.” And as said before, your argument as represented in your list of questions is not original, nor are some of my arguments (while many are), though i do not see using either as plagiarism.
But far from using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person, instead i carefully cited Bellarmine as the original source, having directly copied the quote from here some time ago, and saving it before posting here, while my research has not found its authenticity being challenged, even in Catholic sources where it is quoted.
2. As for copyright infringement, this “occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.” In contrast, “a work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.” (U.S. Copyright Office)
Ideas and facts themselves are not copyrighted, though patents can apply, and compilations can be copyrighted. However, the “fair use” clause provides some allowance of portions of copyrighted works in general, such as said here, in “limited purpose of teaching, reviewing, literary criticism and the like.”
As WP informs, works published before 1923 are almost always public domain in the U.S., such as the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, and the patents on powered flight. Besides the 1923 date, the expiration of a copyright is normally based on a number of years following the death of the last surviving creator, (50 years and 70 years being the most common. Public domain works can also be freely used for derivative works without permission. See more referenced info from WP here, and from the USC here, and dates from Cornell here.
As Robert Bellarmine died September 1621, works by him would be Public Domain, and even if they were not then my quote would surely be allowed under fair use, as credited.
Nor are any of the other quotes i provided without references and links, unlike what is advised by one of your apologists, at least as regards private correspondence:
"What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you're discussing. Don't hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there.
If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don't see any problem, as long as you're doing it in private correspondence." (Apologetics for The Masses by John Martignoni, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2550)
Text for the day: “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” (Ja. 1:19b)
3. Despite all your bluster about copyright infringement,, the fact is that your assertion that you can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that you have received a true sacrament through Rome's clergy, is contradicted by Bellarmine. This is due to the inability to know with certainty the intent of the administer grace, and relates to what Trent also teaches regarding the heart of the recipient as regards knowing you have salvation, that while “no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.”
While what is properly called certitude, as the Catholic Encyclopedia sees it, is such “assent to the truth of a proposition as excludes all real doubt,” and which i affirm one can speak as regards clear truths of Scripture, more than that you have received a true sacrament. Yet as regards the latter it is held such as by the Society of Saint Pius X, that you may have moral certitude, which is subject to occasional exceptions. They state, “In effect, Saint Robert Bellarmine points out that we can never have a certitude of Faith concerning the reception of a true sacrament, since no-one can see the intention of another. However, in truth we can never have such a certitude concerning human events. The greatest certitude that we can have is a moral certitude, which is also the certitude that we can have about any contingent, singular reality.” (http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__sacramental.htm)
And as stated before, Trent does allow for knowing by special revelation that you are assuredly in the number of the predestinate, (Chapters IX, XII. http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html) while John offers assurance that one has eternal life.
4. Despite your scorn for pasted quotes which substantiates my argument (not substitutes for it), and your assertion of ignorance of Catholic doctrine on my part, the fact is and remains that your contention that the pope has only spoken from the chair twice is also contradicted by known Roman Catholic apologists and scholars. Which, along with your lack of certainty of faith as regards your understanding of infallible declarations (which need varying degrees of interpretation), and the sparsity of its interpretations of verses of Scripture, and that it is held that most of what Catholics believe and practice has not been stated infallibly (being from the Ordinary magisterium), testifies to the lack of certainty Catholics face despite having a (claimed) infallible interpreter, which is invoked as the answer to having an infallible Scripture without an infallible interpreter.
I find your claim of limited infallibility complete disingenuous. Infallibility is a binary property; you are either infallible or you are not, and clearly are not.
The good thing is that despite your previous charges, you now find my claim, while your statement that infallibility is a binary property does not solve the problem of the basis for this claim. As every good gift is from above, I also assert that one can have the ability to understand and teach infallible truths, but your condition for assurance that Rome has thus spoken is that it is according to a certain infallibly (at least as regards the pope, from which conciliar infallibility is derived) defined content (faith and morals) and scope (to the Church universal) criteria, whereas mine is clear Scriptural warrant and attestation.
You continue to tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on the Catholic Church,
Rather, i actually affirmed that Rome and others can speak infallible truth, which even a donkey can. But that fulling its own formula does not make it so.
God, in former times, clothed his Apostles with power far more exalted. They were endowed with gifts of working miracles, of prophecy, and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Church is merely the custodian.
A distinction that fails to make a critical difference. She is not merely preaching the wholly inspired Scriptures, but claims to uniquely define what Truth is, rendering such extra Biblical traditions such as the Assumption as dogma, and to infallible teach as dogma matters of interpretation, while it makes Tradition equal to Scripture, effectively adding to the canon. The authority of men like the apostles to teach historical events as dogmatic fact, as well as interpretations of Scripture, and to add to it, was established by their level of Scriptural attestation, with its Scriptural corroboration and “signs of an apostle,” (2Cor. 12:12) not due to conformity to Rome's criteria, or formal decent, as useful as that may be. And she has gone beyond the apostles to claiming direct temporal power over those without, and physical means of coercive punishment over church members. (cf. 1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12)
So let's just agree to disagree. Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
I do agree we disagree, and intend to do the latter. Thanks