Couple questions about Christianity [Archive]

11-19-2005, 12:33 PM

Its been a while for me on Christian Theology, but I'll chime in on this one. Its a good question and one that challenges the fairness and rationality of the theology behind how people are judged.
The key phrase to look for in theology is "Dispensation Theory".
On the question of whether people who don't have a chance to accept Christ automatically go to heaven - my understanding was that the answer to that is no. An automatic pass into heaven if you've never heard of Christ makes no sense at all as you have pointed out. According to the theology that I am familiar with, how they are judged depends on when they lived and what circumstances they were in. If they lived before Moses' Laws, then they are in the so called "Dispensation of Concience". The same criteria goes for non-Jewish people (called Gentiles by Paul)who have never heard about Christ Here's a quote ...
Romans 2:14-15, " For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"
Now if you are Jewish before Christ - then you are under the Mosaic Law (Dispensation of Law).
And there are other dispensations that cover other categories.
Now I am not sure how widely dispensation theory is accepted by different denominations - which ones believe it or which get outraged by it.
I've never been a fan of the tendancy of some denominations to emphasise converting people and crusading above all else. So I've asked these kinds of questions too.

NotReady

11-19-2005, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1. Before Jesus, were all people sent to Heaven? Or were they all sent to Hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no specifics laid out in the Bible about this. Paul, in Romans, states that Abraham is the example for all because he "believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness". Obviously, he didn't have faith in Jesus Christ as we know Him, as He hadn't been born yet. Paul also talks about how God reveals Himself to all people, though he doesn't tie this in specifically to Christ. So orthodox Christianity usually says that God saves those who have faith in Him without trying to lay down a set of rules for those who haven't heard of Christ.

[ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then how do missionaries justify doing what they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe anyone thinks that someone will be lost after hearing the gospel who would otherwise have been saved had they not heard. Jesus told His disciples to go to all the world and preach the gospel, so it's not correct to say this causes people to be lost.

11-19-2005, 08:12 PM

Most Protestant denominations that I know of would hold the view that nobody is sent to heaven or hell until Jesus returns, and the final Judgement takes place. It's not real clear "where" they are until then. Abraham's bosom? Purgatory? A lower-level of heaven? I've heard lots of different ideas.

Christians can't even agree on what "hell" is, much less who goes, when, and how.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 02:06 AM

Yes, simply the New Catechism says that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children, which is heresy. If they have not reached the age of reason and they have not had water or martyrdom baptism, we cannot hope for them going to heaven. If effectively denies the dogma of Baptism.

Here is the exact passage from the CCC:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I have asked Novus Ordo priests to clarify this position and they say that the Church teaching has "evolved" which is BS de fide heresy. They lie to penitent mothers who had abortions, saying things like, "don't worry, your baby is in Heaven now." Without the grace of Baptism under one of its three forms, one cannot enter Heaven, period.

RJT

11-21-2005, 02:30 AM

Peter,

Here is a link to a discussion of limbo:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Nothing in the linked text leads me to believe that your position is valid. Therefore ( fully aware that exegesis is not my forte, yet relying on David’s theory of those smarter than I - the Pope in this case) I hereby accept your challenge.

Let’s here what you got.

RJT

11-21-2005, 02:49 AM

Do Catholics just believe whatever new doctrines the Vatican spits out? I know I'm generalizing by saying "catholics," so I'll narrow it. What do catholics on here believe regarding this?

If I were Catholic I think I'd be critical of any new doctrines, considering the religion is CHRISTianity and Mr. Christ died 2000 years ago. They may be ordained and blessed and learned and all that other good stuff, but is anyone really an authority on this subject.

Which brings me to another, perhaps more valid question. What is the Church's stance on modern doctrines; do they require faith in them, or are catholics only required to believe in the older teachings?

Peter666

11-21-2005, 03:27 AM

Catholics believe that every dogma and doctrine comes from what is called the deposit of faith. This means that everything essential regarding our religion was taught by Christ during his ministry and left to the Apostles. When dogmas or doctrines are formed, these are not new concepts being revealed. They are simply a clarification of what Christ taught. So throughout history when certain issues came into dispute, or new issues arose, the Church would provide the final answer by formulating a dogma, and this answer is guaranteed to be true through the intercession of the Holy Ghost. These are said to be defined or de fide statements, and to oppose or question them is to be a heretic.

vulturesrow

11-21-2005, 10:17 AM

The Church teaching doesnt state that un baptized children go to heaven. It only says that we can only entrust them to God's care. It makes no statements on their actual status. It almost seems as if you are inventing a conflict where there is none.

MaxPowerPoker

11-21-2005, 10:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1. Before Jesus, were all people sent to Heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Or were they all sent to Hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If they were all sent to Heaven, then why would God send Jesus down? Why create this opportunity for people to go to Hell? Also, if they were all sent to Heaven, then who if not humans were in Hell before Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Justification is where God declares that the righteous requirements of the law are satisfied for sinners on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. All who believe in Jesus have their sins imputed to Christ (they are crucified with him) and his righteousness is imputed to the believer. Our faith is counted as righteousness. Those in the Old Testament who beleive the promises of God had their faith counted as righteousness as well (Hebrews 11).

[ QUOTE ]
2. I was always told by my Christian friends that those who did not have an opportunity to find out about Christianity and therefore can't accept Jesus (such as indigenous peoples in remote areas) are given the benefit of the doubt and get to go to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true. Romans 1 details the guilt of all of creation:

(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

(Rom 1:19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

(Rom 1:20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Creation reveals certain things about God (his eternal power and divine nature) so that we are all without excuse. So when someone who has not heard the gospel dies and goes to hell, they are going to hell because they are guilty. Also in Romans 10 it says this:

(Rom 10:13) For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

(Rom 10:14) But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

(Rom 10:15) And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

While creation reveals truths about God that leave us without excuse, the gospel alone is the power of God for salvation to all who believe.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 02:35 PM

"It only says that we can only entrust them to God's care."

No, it says much more than that. You cannot deny it because the exact quote is directly above. It explicitly states that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children. NO WE CAN'T.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 02:39 PM

I don't understand what you think is invalid.

I agree that there is probably a Limbo. Limbo is not Heaven. The good old Baltimore Catechims taught that this is where the unbaptized children go upon death. The CCC does not. It says we can hope unbaptized children go to heaven, and avoids the discussion of limbo altogether: heresy.

RJT

11-21-2005, 02:54 PM

I think your statement that "it is heresy" is invalid. You more or less threw the gauntlet down for someone to disagree with your statement accusing Pope John Paul I of being a heretic. I picked up the gauntlet - I accept your challenge. Now you must argue your point. You are the one stating heresy. Let's here what you got.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 03:10 PM

A person can either hope that an unbaptized infant can go to Heaven, or they cannot hope that an unbaptized infant can go to Hevean.

Church dogma is that an unbaptized infant cannot go to Heaven, therefore there is no hope.

But those who put the CCC together in defiance of Church dogma have stated that we can hope that unbaptized children go to Heaven. This contradicts the logical conclusion of a Catholic dogma. That is heresy.

I do not know how to make it simpler than this.

RJT

11-21-2005, 03:22 PM

Peter,

Hmmm, this might be easier that I had anticipated. In fact, I might just let Bluff have the honors here of responding. He deserves an easy one for change. I will say this in the meantime: surely you are not using The Baltimore Catechism as your source of Catholic doctrine as the crux of your argument accusing John Paul I of heresy?

RJT

Peter666

11-21-2005, 04:04 PM

I already stated that I am using Catholic Dogma which is the highest authoritative source there is. You seem to assume that infallible dogma can be contradicted while maintaining Catholocity. Whoever is responsible for putting the CCC together is making a heretical statement. Whether that makes JP II heretical in this instance, I don't know. But anybody who honestly believes that those without the grace of Baptism can somehow make it into Heaven, are material heretics at least. And if they maintain this position upon questioning and being confronted with the dogma, are actual heretics.

This is certainly not something that BluffTHIS will disagree with.

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 04:51 PM

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 06:08 PM

Your point being? It's a nice motto there, but unfortunately, that is not defined dogma, and neither is the heretical CCC. Can we or can we not hope for the salvation of children who have died without Baptism?

From the Council of Trent, Session 7:

Canon 5: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

IX. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants.

XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

And from The Fathers of the Church:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

Can we hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Maybe it is a typo and the CCC really means: salivation? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 06:16 PM

My point is that you are asserting that the church teaches something that it does not. The above quote from the catechism in no way says they are saved, just that they are entrusted to the mercy of God.

More "details" for David to appreciate.

Peter666

11-21-2005, 06:32 PM

Why would David, or anybody who is logical and wants the truth join a Church which obviously contradicts itself?

One doctrinal error is enough to prove its fallibility.

Again, can we or can we not hope for the salvation of unbaptized children? It's either yes or no, not yo, and that makes one side wrong and one side right. This is exactly why modern day Catholics don't feel compelled to baptize their children right away, or even do so.

My position is simple. Much of the hierarchy of today's Church (post Vatican II Church 1965) has been overrun by heretics and those suspected of heresy. And all the major problems it faces: lack of vocations, lack of true holiness (leading to the sex abuse scandals and what not) is a direct manifestation of this awful situation. The Catholic Church has not been in a greater crisis since the Arian heresy ca 4th Century.

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and those suspected of heresy

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas all you suspectors on the fringe think that good fruit can spring from disobedience and clever rationalizations.

RJT

11-21-2005, 07:28 PM

Pete,

It might help if you quote the whole text of Canon 5.

[ QUOTE ]
If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then the rest, not really important to your point but I'll include it:

[ QUOTE ]
For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made inno-[Page 24]cent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

This (the first quote) says that in baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted. It does not say that without baptism an infant’s original sin cannot be remitted by God directly. This Canon is about those who deny the “power” of baptism.

RJT

11-21-2005, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

My position is simple. Much of the hierarchy of today's Church (post Vatican II Church 1965) has been overrun by heretics and those suspected of heresy. And all the major problems it faces: lack of vocations, lack of true holiness (leading to the sex abuse scandals and what not) is a direct manifestation of this awful situation. The Catholic Church has not been in a greater crisis since the Arian heresy ca 4th Century.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all know what is to be done with heretics. Lets burn them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif This is not a flame. I would not be the one to light the first match.

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 08:26 PM

In regards to the latin phrase I used for the header of an earlier post, ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter {the pope} is, there is the church), Peter, you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
It's a nice motto there, but unfortunately, that is not defined dogma

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, if a protestant poster here asked you to prove the primacy of the bishop of Rome, you would doubtless respond with Matt. 16:18, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.", as the scriptural and thus dogmatic basis for same.

What a tangled web you in SSPX weave. Why not just admit you are basically a protestant, albeit the most conservative one, and obsessed with "details".

Peter666

11-21-2005, 10:43 PM

What you claim to be obedience, is really blind obedience. Obedience without rationality is simply idolatry.

JP II, not only in this case, but many others made statements contradicting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yet you would rather bow down to the authority of JP II when he contradicts Catholic doctrine, rather than the entire authority of tradition which includes all the Popes up to Him. In fact, not only did he contradict Catholic on dogma sometimes, but he would even contradict himself.

Idolatry of the Pope is Papalotry.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/popekora.jpg

Yes, that is a Koran he is kissing, and NO, a Pope is not allowed to do that. It's called breaking the first commandment, and many Christians were martyred for refusing to do the same. Way to go Karol Wojtyla. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

BluffTHIS!

11-21-2005, 11:35 PM

JPII was one of the most theologically knowledgeable and profound popes in history. And even if you think he carried ecumenical activities too far, you cannot show that he was not 100% orthodox in his theological writings.

And since your group lacks all the marks of the true church, then opinions like the ones you express, or those of Archbishop Lefevre or Fr. Peter Scott, are nothing other than personal judgements, and not authoritative interpretations. The very basis of protestantism.

So again, just join the ranks of all the other protestant denominations and admit what you are. Just elect your own pontiff and make your defacto schism into the full blown heresy that it really is. And keep thinking that Benedict XVI is really different than JPII when he was his theological right hand man. If your group doesn't come back into the fold under him, it never will.

And all this because your founders refused to adapt to the Mass in the vernacular in a differnt form. Liturgical practices, not doctrinal/theological matters.

RJT

11-21-2005, 11:52 PM

Bluff,

Sorry I got you involved here. I thought it was a simple matter of infallibility and all relative to Ecumenical Councils and the like. Hadn’t realized until these last few days, exactly where Pete was coming from. Got it now.

I think I’ll pass on the discussion. But, I will monitor it if he continues with his calumnies.

RJT

vulturesrow

11-21-2005, 11:57 PM

JPII was a highly regarded theologian long before he was named Pope. The thought of him making a statement contrary to doctrine is laughable at best.

Bigdaddydvo

11-22-2005, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What you claim to be obedience, is really blind obedience. Obedience without rationality is simply idolatry.

JP II, not only in this case, but many others made statements contradicting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yet you would rather bow down to the authority of JP II when he contradicts Catholic doctrine, rather than the entire authority of tradition which includes all the Popes up to Him. In fact, not only did he contradict Catholic on dogma sometimes, but he would even contradict himself.

Idolatry of the Pope is Papalotry.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/popekora.jpg

Yes, that is a Koran he is kissing, and NO, a Pope is not allowed to do that. It's called breaking the first commandment, and many Christians were martyred for refusing to do the same. Way to go Karol Wojtyla. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think JPII was simply acknowledging that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham. Though the Catholic and Muslim ideas of God certainly have their distance, it is still the same "reality."

Take it FWIW, and I don't know how much credibility you lend to them, but the Blessed Mother revealed to the children at Medjugorje that the holiest woman in the villiage was an old Muslim lady...apparently her simple life and devotion to daily prayer was very pleasing to God.

Peter666

11-22-2005, 01:39 AM

"JPII was a highly regarded theologian long before he was named Pope. The thought of him making a statement contrary to doctrine is laughable at best."

No, he received a doctorate in Phenomenology. His writings as theologian are beyond suspect. He would have been condemned in Pope Pius XII's time without doubt. He did not come into prominence until after this.

To BluffTHIS: why bring the SSPX into the discussion? Who cares about them, you don't need them to show the dubiousness of JPII, he does that well enough himself. But since you brought it up, let us see what JP II has to say regarding development of doctrine in Ecclesia Dei (in which he is quoting Vatican II) "It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience" Now counter this with what St. Pius X had to say in his condemnation of the Modernists in Pascendi:

"In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer."

No wonder JP II refused to take the oath against modernism in his coronation.

Finally to RJT: What calumny? I could not make this stuff up if I wanted too. I leave you with a pic of JP II at mass with a topless woman reading the Epistle. The inculturation of ethnicity at mass is bad enough, but are the breasts really necessary to compound the scandal?

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/018barebrstreads20gospel.jpg

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 01:49 AM

De Papa JPII, argumentum tuum et argumentum ad hominem et argumentum ad ignorantiam est.

Peter666

11-22-2005, 01:50 AM

Oh, for God's sake, don't get me started on Medjugorje /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I can understand if someone presented a book to him and he kissed it by accident or what not, but this incident took place in Iraq on his papal visit and was planned from the get go. I am not sure if you are aware of the theological problem of modern "Ecumenism", but this falls under that category. The shocking thing is that the Vicar of Christ would do it. It is a scandal of the highest magnitude. The worst one though was the Prayer Meeting at Asissi with the different religions of the world in 1988.

There are so many things I can say into about the theological problems, but I don't want to shock the Catholics and give them heart attacks all in one night. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

RJT

11-22-2005, 01:59 AM

Petey,

I am only interested in your still unproven accusation of heresy of John Paul II relative to the limbo issue. You have not addressed any specific dogma that his CCC conflicts with. I don’t think that the Baltimore Catechism fits the definition. If that is your belief, then we can simply agree that one of us correct. Take your pick on who it is.

To go on tangents other than the limbo issue is not my interest.

RJT

Peter666

11-22-2005, 02:10 AM

Come on, I am waiting for a theological dissertation trying to prove me wrong. I take no pleasure in condemning JP II as he seemed like an alright guy. But theologically the thing is a total disaster.

-Et tu, Karol Wojtyla!?!-

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 02:13 AM

Proof is incumbent upon him who asserts something, not on him who disputes such an assertion.

RJT

11-22-2005, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Proof is incumbent upon him who asserts something, not on him who disputes such an assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff,

Man, I thought the same thing. Just never could have worded it so eloquently. I need a good ghost writer.

RJT

Peter666

11-22-2005, 02:27 AM

Back to limbo. I made my case above with all the dogmatic sources, so if you have any specific questions regarding those, I'll be happy to answer.

We don't know for certain if Limbo exists, as this is theological speculation. But it is de fide heresy to condemn anyone who holds this opinion. And we also know that salvation is impossible for the unbaptized (in one of the three forms). If they don't go to a type of "limbo" then the only alternative is a really mild Hell. That was St. Augustine's speculation. We will know for certain in the afterlife.

As for the last Pope, we do not know JP II's exact position on the salvation of unbaptized infants through the CCC. He did not write the CCC, although he authourized it. However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism.

It will have to be a future Church Council and Pope that will go through the details in all their intricacy to make official pronouncements of condemnation. This is not unprecedented: it happened twice before in Church history with two other Popes. But they only had one little issue, where JP II engrosses all of Catholic thought with his errors.

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 02:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Back to limbo.

[/ QUOTE ]

De minimus non curat praetor.

David Sklansky

11-22-2005, 05:21 AM

"However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism."

Oh my God! Sounds like you practically had a damn Jew for a Pope!

jokerthief

11-22-2005, 07:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi. Non Christian here wondering if someone could answer a couple questions for me.

1. Before Jesus, were all people sent to Heaven? Or were they all sent to Hell?
If they were all sent to Heaven, then why would God send Jesus down? Why create this opportunity for people to go to Hell? Also, if they were all sent to Heaven, then who if not humans were in Hell before Jesus?

2. I was always told by my Christian friends that those who did not have an opportunity to find out about Christianity and therefore can't accept Jesus (such as indigenous peoples in remote areas) are given the benefit of the doubt and get to go to heaven. If this is the case, then how do missionaries justify doing what they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There were different programs for salvation before Jesus. There were both people who were saved and unsaved. When Jesus came he "sealed the fate" so to speak of those who died before him. They were saved before he came because God is omniscient and knew that Jesus (or really Himself) would save humanity. The act of dying on the cross was God's way of symbolizing to humanity that they did not need "do anything" to be redeemed from sin. He was willing to forgive mankind's act of seperating itself from God and is fully willing to accept anyone who want to come back into God's perfect love. All they have to do is accept this forgivness.

2. Your friend is wrong. God has made it clear that He will make his presence known to all people in some way. I remember studying in my eight grade spanish class that there were Indian tribes in South and Central America that had a religious system that was very close to Christianity. I believe those people are saved. Indigenous people on remote islands, I believe, are more prone to direct revelation through visions and such. I think there are many of these people who are saved but would be completely under the radar. CS Lewis thinks that people of other religions who believe in their religion with a spirit of Christ are saved. If there does exist an all powerfull being who designed and built the universe, he would be capable of having solutions to these problems that we probably can't even imagine. The thing that is very clear is that He wants us to accept Him though.

Hope this helps.

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it appears he believes

[/ QUOTE ]

Always splitting hairs and parsing statements word by word searching for heresy. Instead of trusting the Vicar of Christ of whom there so many signs he was favored by God. What a grim and joyless experience of the faith. A very puritan outlook.

RJT

11-22-2005, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism."

Oh my God! Sounds like you practically had a damn Jew for a Pope!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we already had one for a Savior. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Peter666

11-22-2005, 12:30 PM

This is theology, not scrabble. If I want to have lots of "fun" in this life, believe me, I can find another religion to do it in rather then one that has a crucified God. Although JP II has certainly set new standards for Catholics:

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/015jpiiindianchief.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/032acrobatics3.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/117dancingnunpriestwyd01.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/069swissmass02.jpg

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 01:01 PM

JPII faithfully fulfilled his role as "servant of the servants of God" by travelling to meet the faithful in the enviroment in which they live their daily lives. The same as Jesus did. He was a true apostle who took the lamp of faith to the world and its far corners. Whereas you and your confréres place it under a bushel basket and bemoan the loss of past liturgical traditions while missing the essence of the gospel.

I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
- 1 Cor. 9:22

Peter666

11-22-2005, 01:21 PM

But most of the pictures of the silly shows were taken at the Vatican. This is unbecoming of a prelate on sacred ground. And incidentally, the job description of the Pope is to preserve the deposit of the Faith, not travel around inculturating himself.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/041breakdancing1.jpg

You're quoting passages like Not Ready too.

vulturesrow

11-22-2005, 01:25 PM

unbecoming != heresy.

You have yet to offer even a shred of proof that JPII was a heretic.

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to offer even a shred of proof that JPII was a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suspicion is good enough for Peter.

Peter666

11-22-2005, 02:03 PM

What heresy am I adhering to that makes me a Protestant? And I don't use scriptural passages to fitted to my own context to make my points.

Peter666

11-22-2005, 02:10 PM

Where have I declared that John Paul II is a heretic? I already explained about that is will require another Pope and Council to make any official decision. I am just showing bits and pieces of evidence that will be taken into consideration regarding him. Besides, he does not have to be a heretic Pope to be a bad Pope.

I proved the CCC was heretical. And why won't I get a straight answer to this question:

Can we hope or not hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants? If we can hope for it, how can you reconcile this with the Dogma that without baptism no one can enter Heaven?

Peter666

11-22-2005, 02:17 PM

"I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
- 1 Cor. 9:22

I have to add this juicy tid bit. Is this quote from the same St. Paul who condemned St. Peter for eating with the Jews, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it, but because his action caused scandal amongst the faithful?

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/116razingersynagogue03.jpg

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're quoting passages like Not Ready too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, its so inappropriate to bring the words of scripture into a debate on christianity among christians (as opposed to quoting it to non-believers).

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 02:29 PM

"Is this quote from the same St. Paul who condemned St. Peter for eating with the Jews, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it, but because his action caused scandal amongst the faithful?"

So now you not only are mocking the Vicar of Christ but also God's apostles. What a great example of the faith.

RJT

11-22-2005, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, its so inappropriate to bring the words of scripture into a debate on christianity among christians (as opposed to quoting it to non-believers).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

I caution you in using the word Christian so loosely when including Petey. Folk around here are going to get the wrong idea of our Religion.

RJT

Peter666

11-22-2005, 06:27 PM

How on Earth does that qualify as mocking the apostles or the Pope? That is ridiculous.

So what now? St. Paul did not condemn St. Peter for the scandal he created? Are you going to deny scripture too?

Peter666

11-22-2005, 06:31 PM

I did quote the entire text of Canon 5. This is my source:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Decree on the Sacraments, Decrees on Baptism:

"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

I don't know what you are referring too.

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I proved the CCC was heretical. And why won't I get a straight answer to this question:

Can we hope or not hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants? If we can hope for it, how can you reconcile this with the Dogma that without baptism no one can enter Heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't proved any such thing. All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state. It says in my quote of it above that unbaptized infants are entrusted to the mercy of God. That does not extrapolate into "hoping that they are saved".

You strain at gnats in order to justify the disobedience and schism of the SSPX to which you adhere. And accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops, only makes you the heretic. SSPX has set itself not just against JPII and the CCC, but against the entire church since the episcopate overwhelmingly acknowledges the orthodoxy of JPII and the CCC. And if you say that is just because JPII appointed most of them, then you are denying the efficaceous action of the Holy Spirit as well.

Peter666

11-22-2005, 10:48 PM

"All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state."

This is too funny. I am directly quoting the CCC and now you claim it does not state what it explicity and implicitly states. You only look at this: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them...." which I fully agree with and do not dispute, while you purposely ignore this: "...Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."" Did I make this up in my evil heretical imagination? What do these words in bold state?

You accuse me of trying to assert that the mercy of God quote "extrapolates" into allowing the unbaptized to be saved, while I am merely quoting the passage as found and taught in the CCC word for word. You have purposely blinded yourself to the exact words of the CCC to slander me by saying I am the one teaching that the CCC says we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.

Millions of people and even nations have been separated from the Catholic Church for holding onto one single heresy (the Arian heresy, the Orthodox heresy) and I am accused of "straining at gnats" when I point out an obvious contradiction between the CCC and Catholic Dogma.

You even call me a heretic for "accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops," When a synod of bishops could not even possibly convene if there were not an accusation of heresy to begin with. What, would they all gather in silence magically to only then make official pronouncements of heresy?

Please point out the dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church that makes "accusing a Pope of heresy" a heresy. Especially in light of the fact that two other Popes in history were accused of heretical views, and later had their ideas condemned.

BluffTHIS!

11-22-2005, 11:16 PM

You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words.

Regarding heresy, you are not just accusing one or more popes of heterdox views. You would like to think that so that you don't have to confront the implications of your views. Since the documents of Vatican II (not a dogmatic council) were the result of the synod of bishops and confirmed by Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes (read your Bishop Fellay's comments about his interview with Benedict XVI and Papa Benedict's statements), then the SSPX and you have aligned yourselves against the entire church. Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church and that is what heresy is, a denial of truths held by the entire church. You and your group are not just a vox clamatus in deserto to the silent majority being lead astray by a pope, but those who deny that which is held by the vast majority of the episcopate including most importanly the see of Rome. If you really believe the words of scripture that the Holy Spirit will keep the church as a whole as opposed to one pontiff who is not speaking in an infallible pronouncement, free from doctrinal error, then you must see that this is so.

And although SSPX likes to try to use clever canonical arguments to say that they are not really in breach of communion, it is logically clear that by its stated positions, that when the first pontiff who has been ordained a priest according to the "new" rite is elected, that you will then essentially be sede vacantists.

RJT

11-23-2005, 12:07 AM

Peter,

The problem, I think, we have here is in your interpretation of infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. I take it you disagree with the following in which case there isn’t much point in discussion things further.

[ QUOTE ]
How Many Infallible Teachings?
By Father Pat McCloskey, O.F.M.
Q U I C K S C A N St. Anthony Messenger Press
August, 2004

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Why Did They Want Jesus to Leave?
Why Have a Spiritual Advisor?
'By Faith Alone'

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic.
She says that the Church has spoken infallibly
only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and
Mary’s Assumption.

I say that it has spoken infallibly many times,
especially through its 21 ecumenical councils.
Which one of us is right?

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct.
Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in
1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly
declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and
sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements
as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary
magisterium (teaching role) has been used only
once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly
defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption
is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that
teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s
liturgy.

Since 1870, some people have argued that
canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that
assertion is a debatable point at this time.

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are
automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed
(adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.)
states the faith of the Church on a very crucial
point: Is Jesus “of the same substance” [nature]
as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said
that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing
Profession of Faith and inserted the term
homoousious (“of the same substance”) at the
proper place. This is an infallible statement of
what the Church believes.

That same creed was expanded at the Council of
Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more
explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy
Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted
in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that
it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does
not understand infallibility to mean that.

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential
judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in
the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves:
Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations
with non-Christians? Should the council’s
treatment of Mary be a separate document or part
of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church?
Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly
condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible
teachings on matters of faith and morals, they
have also made some prudential judgments about
which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical
council can be binding without being declared
infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council
(1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury
(charging any interest on a loan). Usury was
later understood as charging excessive interest
on a loan.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible
when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and
successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some
revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra
(“from the chair”). He must intend to teach
infallibly and make this known at the time of
that teaching.

Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the
Church’s ordinary teaching authority
(magisterium) and are understood as authentic
teachings—but not infallible in the sense of
Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT

11-23-2005, 01:10 AM

Umm, as a disinterested and uninvolved party who has nothing to gain by the victory of either argument (I'll definetely go to hell in both cases), I feel I may make a good referee, nothwithsatnding the fact that I was baptised in this august body rites, albeit without anyone asking my opinion or consent on the matter. Even, if some may consider this, not staying in my lane. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Hey, if good enough for you, good enough for me, bigdaddydvo. I am, after all, only trying to bring about a reconciliation from an objective viewpoint. I must say that from a logical point of view, both parties are making some aerobatics, but it seems that Peter has consistently gained the advantage with his application of logic. He seems to have more internal choerence with his arguments. OTOH, was it not for the threat to discontinue or ignore the debate, a sure sign of accepting defeat, or at least used as such by most theist faced with the incontrovertible, the last post of RJT may have diminished Peter's abvantage without quite overcoming it. The game is not over till the fat lady sings. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

RJT, I am very interested in a couple of point you raise in your last post. It seems that I could be a good catholic and still consider the cult of saints and canonisation as supertition and voodoo!? Am I understanding this right? I don't think it will delight some of my catholics friends in our coming discussions.

There seem to be a bit of wobbling regarding infallibility also, or a variety of infallibilities, with different precedences. It seems that what is teaching of the church could change with the seasons. And what is to be believed today may not be tomorrow. Of course, I find this problematic, both as I see it as a form of trying to cheat according to the rules, and also, from a certain compassion I have for all those that may have been mislead in their faith.

Anyway I find this thread most enjoyable and should one party explicitely or implicitely accept defeat, I am sure that there are many other issues which could be traeted in the same fashion.

Thanks guys

Peter666

11-23-2005, 01:29 AM

I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

Peter666

11-23-2005, 01:32 AM

Anybody who wishes to judge the logic of the parties involved without bias is more than welcome. Nobody needs to agree or be very knowledgable about Catholic Church history or teaching to see logical errors in an argument.

Peter666

11-23-2005, 01:53 AM

"You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words."

Even if it is just meant to psychologically comfort, the statement does not make sense. We are comforted by the fact that we can entrust the unbaptized into God's mercy. No problem with this whatsoever. But then we are also allowed to hope in the lie that they are saved?

To put it another way:

The Church teaches with infallible authority: 2+2=4 and anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.

Then the New Catholic Catechism says: 2+2=4, and we can trust those who died unbaptized into God's math. And thank to God's math, we are allowed to hope that 2+2=5.

That is meant to comfort?

Again you bring up the SSPX which is another issue altogether, but to briefly touch upon it: "Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church" No, not against the Church, just versus whoever holds an erroneous opinion, because an erroneous opinion is never part of the Church. If you do not believe this, than you will believe that St. Athanasius (who was excommunicated by both a synod of bishops AND Pope Liberius) was really a heretic. There were only 5 bishops who maintained the Catholic Faith along with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis. You would have defended the Arians back then too like you defend the neo-modernists.

Also the sedevacantist view you mention concerning the new rite of ordination is simply not taught by the SSPX.

Finally, you failed to answer my question in the last post: Where does the Church state anywhere that accusing the Pope of heresy makes one a heretic?

RJT

11-23-2005, 02:16 AM

Here is basically what it is MG,

Btw, I really would not have gotten involved in the topic had I realized Peter was as militant as he is. Hadn’t really paid all that much attention to his details before. Nor did I really know quite where he was coming from.

Peter is a descent guy, basically. He must be to an extent, he says he is Christian afterall. Sometimes his fascism gets in the way is all. /images/graemlins/wink.gif He definitely can’t see the forest for the trees in my opinion (as well as Bluff’s I would guess). He is basically a very conservative Catholic. A bit of background:

Back in the early 1960’s, then Pope John XXIII wanted "… to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in." He convened an Ecumenical Council commonly known as Vatican II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

This Council more or less did some updating in way things go in our Church. This is not uncommon in our Church. We are a living Church. Just as science updates itself with its own new knowledge, so does our Church. We don’t change the basics of what we believe, we simply interpret things in light of new awareness. We evolve so to speak.

Matters such as things discussed here have history going back to Jesus. These details that David S.’s jests about are of course not very meaningful to the non believer. But, these discussion are like different doctors discussing a patient who has yet to be ultimately diagnosed. (Not the best analogy.)

The study of our Religion (I would think most Religions) can be as involved as one wants to get. Folk get Ph.D.s in different branches of theology. Theologians are always discussing thousand year old texts and the meanings.

To many like myself, Catholicism is not static. Peter basically believes it is, imo. He, also, lives pre-Vatican II. Pre/post Vatican II mindset is probably where most debates arise between Pete and others regarding details of Catholicism.

Hope that puts things in perspective for you.

RJT

Pete, If I wrote anything that might be erroneous, it is not meant to be libelous. I apologize and am willing to stand corrected. Just trying to edify the poster.

RJT

11-23-2005, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you don’t take into consideration the context of the times it was written.

edited for clarity

11-23-2005, 03:00 AM

Hiya RJT,

Thanks for the link. It is obviously a much finer debate than I envisaged. After a first quick reading, I was particularly interested in "Dignitatis Humanae" which addresses some of my issues with catholics and seems to be inspired by a spirit of tolerance even towards atheists. In fact that it seems to me that it could be summarised and obviously grossly simplified by the notion of staying in your lane. I will read further on this, but rest assured that if this is the case I would barrack for/support your position over Peter. However, and not judging church dogmas by its adherents behaviour or notions, it seems to me that from a logical perspective, regardless of desirability of content, I would still have to give Peter the upper hand as things stand in this particular debate.

A contention of mine is that self-contradiction is inherent in christian doctrines or religions and may, indeed be both their strength (in terms of attracting adherents) and its weakness when confronted by a very logical secular world.

Anyway, thanks again for your link, and your admirable discipline and open-mindedness in bothering to reply. I appreciate it and it helps me put a different coloring on to the Christian typing I may hold.

Kind regards,

MidGe

RJT

11-23-2005, 03:27 AM

MG,

The reason you might lean more towards Peter in the debate probably lays in my inability (as will as disinterest) to accurately explain the details of the debate - it gets involved. It would indeed appear he has the upper hand. I assure you he does not. Again, for no other reason than David’s theory: those smarter/more knowledgeable than I, in this case Pope John Paul II - the Pope who just died.

RJT

p.s. If Bluff chooses to continue the discussion (not asking him to) , he certainly will carry the ball with no problem.

BluffTHIS!

11-23-2005, 11:03 AM

I didn't say that accusing a pope of heresy by itself is sufficient to label the accuser a heretic. I said that accusing the pope who is supported by the magisterium is such an act of heresy. And that is the crucial difference with the Arian heresy, because the see of Rome never succumbed. A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy.

And you tell me what the position of SSPX will be when a pope who was ordained under the new rite is elected? Will they consider him to possess valid orders? If so then why tell their members not to go to indult Trid Masses celebrated by such priests?

Peter666

11-23-2005, 04:29 PM

Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

RJT

11-23-2005, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

11-23-2005, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

RJT

11-23-2005, 04:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is our study of DNA and such things finished? Does one ever read a great novel again without new understanding/ awarenesses? Read Soren K. in our book club and see how one man's understanding of the same short story changes over time.

RJT

Peter666

11-23-2005, 04:57 PM

"A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy."

This only works when the Pope and Bishops are making de fide statements that have the necessary criteria to be infallible regardless of numbers of bishops. Any innovative pronouncements that are not part of the Deposit of Faith have no spiritual backing whatsoever. This would apply to some of the things stated in the Vatican Two Council, which the Popes themselves claimed was a pastoral council and not a council making de fide statements, hence opening itself up to errors. This despite the fact that the Pope and majority of bishops would agree on an erroneous point.

As for the SSPX, I told you before that going to the New Rite of Mass or the Indult Mass offered by the Society of St. Peter has nothing to do with the validity of the mass itself. It has everything to do with the bastardization of the new mass and the fact that those under the auspices of the Fraternity of St. Peter who say the Indult must agree with the bastardization of the New mass as told to them by their local diocesan bishop. Plus now they must even celebrate it too. That's why one should not attend the indult. It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

11-23-2005, 05:08 PM

Hiya RJT,

So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics /images/graemlins/smile.gif

RJT

11-23-2005, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya RJT,

So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't really have much time right now. But for now, Jesus' words are static. Like Moby Dick the words on the page don't change.

BluffTHIS!

11-23-2005, 06:36 PM

Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy. Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?

[ QUOTE ]
It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not an essesntial matter of faith. And in fact the liturgical rite to which you belong is canonically determined by that of your parents. Thus most of us belong to the western/Roman rite as opposed to one of the Eastern Rites. But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination. Your position is no different than if you decided you wanted to attend a Sarum Rite mass if some priests would celebrate it, and all without canonical permission.

Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church. If you maintain otherwise, then once again you are merely adopting a position based upon the spirit of protestantism.

Peter666

11-23-2005, 08:05 PM

"Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy."

Of course Vatican II's erroneous statements can be heretical. Any statement made that contradicts traditional doctrine is heresy no matter the source. How could it be otherwise?

"Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?"

No. The Liturgy is the highest expression of the Catholic Faith because it is the highest form of worship. The whole thing is implicitly and explicitly an expression of Catholic Dogma contained in practical worship.

"But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination."

Of course, they can choose any rite they wish. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Novus Ordo rite of Mass has removed the Catholicity of the mass to appease Protestants and is a bastardized rite that should not be used for it leads one to false conclusions of the Catholic Faith. See the Ottaviani Report for a start.

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church." But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

Peter666

11-23-2005, 08:16 PM

"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

BluffTHIS!

11-23-2005, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church."

But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

See you can't have it both ways. If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare"). And if it's not doctrine, then it is a practice regulated by canon law, and the canonical decision is necessarily right since the bishops and pope have the right to make the determinations which should be followed, and failing to do so is disobediance.

PrayingMantis

11-23-2005, 09:36 PM

god has just PMed me, he says you are both crazy. he's sorry he won't be able to participate since he's busy bonus whoring, but in any case he doesn't have anything to say. he also sends his love and regards. (he's running pretty bad at the moment, in fact, so he's not in such a great mood).

Peter666

11-23-2005, 10:18 PM

"If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare")."

No it does not. The only time a council or Pope do not use the "I define and declare" line is when they merely reaffirm a previous dogma already declared (which they did do in Vatican II at places, which is fine). This is a restatement of an infallible doctrine and is therefore also infallible. As mentioned previously, a synod of Bishops and Popes affirming something new is no guarantee of infalliblity unless specifically invoked. And whatever they affirm cannot be a new innovation, but a Deposit of the Faith.

That being said, where have a synod of Bishops and Pope ever affirm the Novus Ordo Rite? This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

Peter666

11-23-2005, 10:30 PM

Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/082trapistzen_1.jpg

http://http://www.picturehosting.org/images/petergorse/058buddhistretreat.jpg

BluffTHIS!

11-23-2005, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so? And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?

Peter666

11-24-2005, 12:18 AM

"So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so?"

It is so because the indefectability of the Church does not prevent a Pope from introducing new, defective, or erroneous rites. The Pope can introduce the chicken dance in the mass if he wants and make it legally valid.

That being said, there is an argument that Paul VI did not even properly promulgate the Novus Ordo rite, merely giving priests permission to say it at the most. But that is not needed for this specific argument.

"And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?"

First of all, it was not a response to Vatican II. Vatican II did not attempt to change the rite. If you read the documents on the liturgy it actually emphasizes that we should preserve the latin and that there may be some investigations made into using the vernacular in a limited way at certain points of the Mass. That is all.

The Novus Ordo rite was a completely uncalled for and unnecessary rite initiated by Bugnini and other Vatican officials to Protestantize the mass. The biggest question Catholics were asking when it came out was: why? Nobody had asked for a change except for the modernists of course.

As noted above, it is arguable that there is no legal basis for having this as the current rite of mass. But assuming that it is, then it is just a legal adoption. There is no infallibility or indefectability involved in having all the bishops use it.

The country of Lithuania practiced the Tridentine rite of Mass up until 1994 because there was no reason or basis to adopt the Novus Ordo rite. Only when their Cardinal retired and some modernist Vatican "yes man" was appointed did they introduce the Novus Ordo rite.

BluffTHIS!

11-24-2005, 01:25 AM

You constantly weasel around and instead of saying this or that is definitely wrong/heretical because ABC, you say stuff like "does not prevent", "there is an argument that", or that someone is "suspected" of heresy. A bunch of insinuations only and a classic rhetorical technique of using a lot of "maybes" and "might bes" and then saying where there is smoke there has to be fire.

And the fact remains, that however wrong or ill-advised certain administrative and liturgical changes might have been, if you cannot prove that they were heretical then you in SSPX have no basis for liturgical/canonical disobedience merely because your preferences haven't been met.

And how is it, that the entire church, larger than all other christian denominations combined, with close to a billion faithful in communion with Rome, with thousands of bishops and hundreds of thousands of priests, is so completely wrong on all these things while your group with only 4 bishops and 50 priests stands alone in resisting the dastardly plot to protestantize the catholic liturgy and its theology?

Your group with all its comspiracy theories and inuendos and self-serving rationalizations are the McCarthyites of catholocism. The John Birch Society of religion.

RJT

11-24-2005, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that the meaning changes. I don’t really think I said that. It is our understanding that becomes enhances (probably a better word). This is similar to how we as individuals evolve (not literally as science uses the word) as we get older. Perhaps wisdom is the best word of all. As one grows older one certainly has more wisdom (really wisdom without the word “more” - I am not sure if wisdom is something one can have in youth). If you do not view our Church as a Living Church than you probably won’t agree with me.

Certainly you have to agree that we constantly study our texts and tradition. If not, then are you suggesting we retire all theologians? The Holy Spirit might as well sit back and take an eternal sabbatical, too, then. Perhaps, you do consider our Church static as Bluff suggests in the other thread. Where would you have our Church have stopped - with Augustine?

Your final paragraph suggests more of what I had in mind with my post.

BluffTHIS!

11-24-2005, 05:54 AM

I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

11-24-2005, 06:18 AM

Hiya BluffTHIS,

Can you explain to me something that I find a bit hard to fathom. If there are issues that are non-doctrinal and don't call the infallibilty principle into play, why are they compulsory and to which extend so? Severing the communion with the church, excommunication, sin (mortal?)?

PrayingMantis

11-24-2005, 06:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are talking about. god too has no idea what you are talking about. was it some joke about buddhists? do you think me and god are buddhists? well, no, lol.

also, god sends you his love again. he appriciates what you are doing "for" him, but really, he would prefer if you just listen to hawaian music as a way of worshiping him. he LOVES hawaian music, especially this dude (http://www.kawikakahiapo.com/). very recommended. and good prices. the pope would love it, i'm sure.

Peter666

11-24-2005, 10:43 AM

What am I weaseling around? My point in this whole thread was that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church is heretical which I proved logically.

Now you have had to avert the argument to an attack on Traditionalist Catholics, trying to say they are schismtatic, heretical or what not due to your erroneous views on Papal and Church indefectability, the New rite of Mass, and Canon Law. I have answered all these points directly with relevant historical examples where necessary.

Now again, to avert attention you are attacking the SSPX. What is the SSPX? Merely a group of Priests, Seminarians and Bishops who since the early 70's have opened up seminaries to teach authentic Catholic doctrine without modernist influence. Naturally, because modernists hate Catholicism, they are attacked relentlessly. But despite this, the SSPX seminaries have the highest number of vocations in their respective countries. Do you deny there is a crisis in the modern Catholic Church concerning vocations and priestly morals?

You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses who are the asses. 2+2'ers make the minority in the poker world. Does this make them wrong? What is the correlation between population and truth? I would think the only relevant one is the number of vocations produced, and the SSPX has the post conciliar Church's ass kicked there.

carlo

11-24-2005, 11:44 AM

The German poet and philosopher Schiller, when asked,"To which of the existing religions do you confess?" said "To none." And when he was asked why, he replied-"For religious reasons!" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

carlo

RJT

11-24-2005, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post a similar thought: Jesus didn’t speak Latin.

David Sklansky

11-24-2005, 06:04 PM

"You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses"

Didn't you steal that line from the Orthodox Jews?

BluffTHIS!

11-24-2005, 08:48 PM

Yes you have answered those questions before. But only after you defined and interpreted every term of the argument to suit yourself. YOUR liturgical judgements. YOUR canonical interpretations. YOUR theological views. Nowhere is there deference to or respect for the chair of Peter, the Church as a whole and its Magisterium, or the efficaceous action of the Holy Spirit in keeping the church doctrinally sound. Thus, you and your fellows in SSPX effectively have no communion with the Bishop of Rome or the espiscopacy. And its all about your own interpretations of everything theological, liturgical and canonical. Once again, the very basis of protestantism, High Church Anglicans at best (nothing wrong with them - but they're not catholics).

[ QUOTE ]
You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses who are the asses. 2+2'ers make the minority in the poker world. Does this make them wrong? What is the correlation between population and truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget the billion of the faithful sheep who as you say are faithful but mostly unknowlegeable. But all the views of SSPX springs from its "brain trust" of ordained bishops and priests, who are aligned against their brother priests and bishops who are in full communion with the see of Rome. Let's just compare those numbers again.

Roman Catholic Church:
Bishops 3,000+
Priests 100,000+

SSPX:
Bishops 4
Priests 50

And how many of those SSPX priests/bishops hold advanced theological degrees (STD) compared to those in the Roman Catholic Church? Intellectually what you have is is the grad students of the SSPX versus the PhDs of the RCC. And grad students who were educated by someone with a 1950's knowledge.

Peter666

11-24-2005, 10:25 PM

You make it sound like there is no objective truth. You are advocating that mere obedience to a higher authority will always lead one to the objective truth.

I already showed and proved what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches on the necessity of Baptism for infants, while you and modernists have had to employ all sorts of smoke and mirrors to try and justify the error in the CCC. Whether one person believes it or 1 billion makes no difference to your objective error.

Any Catholic wanting to know the Church's teaching would pick up the CCC thinking it would provide the correct answer. People of good will are doing this, and are being hoodwinked into accepting a modernist lie. Naturally, this leads them down the path of modernism which has enveloped the whole Church from top to bottom for a good 40 years.

On a side note, did you agree with the invasion of Iraq even though pope John Paul II demanded that it should not be done?

Peter666

11-25-2005, 12:40 AM

I really don't care what religion you are, as long as you aren't a hypocrite. The picture of the two priests above is a terrible scandal because they claim to be Catholics when in reality they are not. One is a secular priest and the other is a Capuchin. The priest is blessing the Capuchin who is being acknowledged for his practice of Buddism and Buddhist meditation. That of course is a direct violation of the first commandment for Catholics.

And what is even worse, they are seen as priests in good standing with the Catholic Church, and are in "100% communion with Rome" which BluffTHIS thinks is necessary to be a good Catholic these days.

Of course, under normal circumstances it is necessary to be in 100% communion with Rome. But in an abnormal crisis situation like today, doing that may lead to loss of the Faith.

RJT

11-25-2005, 12:43 AM

Peter666,

I assume you agree that the Ecumenical Council’s at Trent (the 19th EC) main objective was to express in definitive form some Catholic Doctrine. I am not sure how much of the following you will agree with, though.

When viewing Trent, one cannot ignore the times in which it was convened. (At that time - 1845 to 1563 - people were under-emphasizing the importance of Baptism and in some cases were criticizing the Church for baptizing infants.) We should not ignore the notion that what was in the consciousness of the participants at Trent has a direct impact on words chosen there and how they were chosen. Their mindset has a direct effect on what was explicitly stated and what was not. (Additionally, we keep in mind that they were concerned with our generation as well as their own.)

[An aside for the non-Christian:

The authors of the U. S. Constitution included everything they could foresee (and/or could agree upon at the time) that was necessary to establish rules for our Nation. Yet, they made no provision to bar further amendments.]

This is not a direct analogy, if for no other reason, than because of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in our doctrine. The important thing to keep in mind, Peter, is that the HS’s involvement does not connote totality in Trent. If totality were the case, we would have been able to stop at Nicaea - the 1st Council - and never would have needed Trent.

The main point of all this is to explain that, although, Trent says: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema”; it is important to note that it does not explicitly talk about infants. Sure, infants are included here; but, Trent does not get involved with the “infant debate”.

Since the Church “allows” for Baptism in different forms (as you have already noted); we can leave open the possibility that infants might indeed be baptized prior to death without our human knowledge of it. How this can happen is not important - we can use our imagination. ( Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!) Without specific doctrine regarding this issue it is fine to use such words as “hope for Salvation of the infant”.

[ QUOTE ]
I already showed and proved what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches on the necessity of Baptism for infants,…

[/ QUOTE ]

The above quote of yours might indeed be true. But, you have not shown/proven the New Catechism quote in question is heresy.

RJT

If you cannot see this, then please reconcile for me Augustine’s view of the un - baptized infant with Thomas Aquinas’. (This is a rhetorical challenge, I really have no interest in going further. If you want a final response, I‘ll listen; but I probably won‘t spend much more time on the topic.)

11-25-2005, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
... One is a secular priest and the other is a Capuchin. The priest is blessing the Capuchin who is being acknowledged for his practice of Buddism and Buddhist meditation. That of course is a direct violation of the first commandment for Catholics...

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me Peter666, what exactly is that first commandement?

Peter666

11-25-2005, 01:22 AM

What you are suggesting is that it is possible for infants to somehow be baptized without our knowledge (like through a miracle of baptism of desire). Now I can give you all sorts of reasons why God would not do this but I CANNOT accuse you of heresy, because there is none present.

Unfortunately, the CCC does not say that we may hope for God to provide a way for unbaptized children to be baptized and hence reach salvation through implicit desire.

It explicity and implicity states that we can hope for the UNBAPTIZED to reach salvation.

Now if you can produce proof that those who wrote the CCC intended to mean your conclusion then they should correct it and be done with it. Problem solved. But the members of the clergy whom I have questioned specifically mean what they say: that the UNBAPTIZED go to heaven. 'We don't need Baptism to go heaven, our thinking has evolved.' They are heretics without doubt.

As for John Paul II, he's dead so I don't know what his intention was. But I can suspect him of heresy, and by reading his other writings come to the assumption that in totality, he is a heretic. I cannot officially pronounce this with authority, but I may personally believe it.

As for your mention of Augustine and Aquinas, there is no difference in the belief on the necessity for the baptism of infants. Also, as regards implicit desire of the child, that would be contrary to the words of Christ Himself and teachings of Aquinas.

Peter666

11-25-2005, 01:29 AM

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange God's before me etc...

To realize the full implications of that for a Catholic, you have to know your Moral Theology.

11-25-2005, 01:46 AM

Ah, OK, I thought that it had to do with capuchins and secular priests and was getting very confused here... lol

To put your mind at rest, Buddhism doesn't address the concept of god. bI am not sure what that particlar photo is, but I stronly suspect that it belongs to a Zen sect of Buddhism which came to Japan via the Chines Chan school. I am basing that on the garb and accoutrements. In that context, it probably an invetiture recognising the learning in an academic sense. Very much in the same way that degrees are conferred to graduates at secular universities in the west. Just the bizareness of accoutrements is different.

Peter, just be careful, as the self-appointed, unbiased referee, I must point out that you are loosing points by trying to take advantage of falsehoods to support you position. This is not the only one I have noticed slipping by, and you don't have the luxury of such a large advantage over your opponents that you can afford those types of slips. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I guess even within catholic universities you could gain a degree or doctorate in theology without having to be a believer. In the case of Buddhism, I can only state that there is not even requirement at all for a believe in god in the practice or the study of the religion. The god concept is not at all relevant to Buddhist doctrine. So, there seem to be no breach of commandment by capuchins or others that may wish to study anything. Unless, like there use to be an index, wich doesn't exist any longer afaik, a catholic is not even allowed to enquire into philosophies except in a catholic approved context.

RJT

11-25-2005, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we must view the context of a statement in which it is written. In this case it is the document itself (as opposed to the environment of Trent in my last example). If you observe carefully you will notice how the CCC uses the words Baptism and baptism. (These are not grammatical games here.)

The CCC is entrusting “…[infants] to the mercy of God…” We “hope” for “the fruits of baptism without … a sacrament” (last partial quote is taken from the example of martyrs - 1258 and B and lower case b.)

Regarding Augustine and Thomas: I was not talking specifically about their thinking on the un-baptized infants specifically in regard to our point. Rather, I was referring to the progression of Augustine’s idea of where that infants “reside” to Thomas’ notion.

RJT

11-25-2005, 02:49 AM

MG,

Thank you for clarifying the Buddhist context.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless, like there use to be an index, which doesn't exist any longer afaik, a catholic is not even allowed to enquire into philosophies except in a catholic approved context.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most of us this is not the case (does not apply.) Peter can answer for himself your question quoted here.

RJT

RJT

11-25-2005, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, when I wrote this a few moments ago, I had no idea science would move so quickly:

Taken from Meromorphic’s link just posted”

[ QUOTE ]

...Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered... human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena...

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS!

11-25-2005, 04:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like there is no objective truth. You are advocating that mere obedience to a higher authority will always lead one to the objective truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously since you and I differ on what that objective truth is in some cases the question is: how do we know what is correct? An authentic interpeter is required. That would be the Church, through its magisterial teaching authority. If not, then you are left with the protestant basis of individual interpretation, which is what you have basically adopted though you do not wish to call it that.

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, did you agree with the invasion of Iraq even though pope John Paul II demanded that it should not be done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with what you have said in the past that all opinions, even papal ones, are not by any means de fide. Thus JPII's moral judgement in that case is not binding on all catholics. And no I don't agree with it.

Similarly, every single statement in the CCC is not of the same level of certainty. But you and those in SSPX are straining to find minor points of doctrine, "details", in order to justify your liturgical and canonical disobedience and refusal of communion with Rome.

So why doesn't the SSPX just take the action logically consistent with its views. That is, electing its own pontiff and declaring that the rest of the church, with its 3000+ bishops and 100K+ priests, has basically broken off from it the true church with its 4 bishops and 50 priests?

vulturesrow

11-25-2005, 08:45 AM

I wonder if Peter will be defending geocentrism next. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

For anyone lurkers who are interested in what some of this hoopla is about, here is a good article:

My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm)

11-25-2005, 09:27 AM

vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?

I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

vulturesrow

11-25-2005, 09:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?

I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I shouldve been more specific about what the article had in it. So it s a good summation of why the SSPX is in fact in schism, the basis of that being some of the points that BluffTHIS has raised in this debate. This debate hasnt been aboutthe SSPX per se, although it has come up and Peter666 seems to be the epitome of the SSPX, splitting hairs in order to justify their lack being in communion with Rome. If your curiousity is in any way piqued, there is plenty of stuff to be googled.

11-25-2005, 09:36 AM

Sorry vulturesrow,

I added the last paragraph to my previous post before you posted.

vulturesrow

11-25-2005, 09:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are you referring to? SSPX was not declared schismatic until their Archbishop consecrated new Bishops, which was clearly a usurpation of the powers of the Pope. Up to that point, SSPX was not in schism. As to ambiguity, Peter666's tactic is to create ambiguity where there is none.

11-25-2005, 09:54 AM

But aren't you saying that the church set the rules as to when it is legitimate for him to consecrate new bishops. From Peter666 viewpoint it is the church that is in error and therefore he can legitimately consecrate bishops.

That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

I must say those are real byzantines or macchiavellian tricks and politics, to an outsider. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

vulturesrow

11-25-2005, 09:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean by setting the rules and then deciding when they apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. Strictly from an organizational standpoint dont all organizations set their rules and then enforce them? You seem to be implying that the Church is applying them in some random manner, is that the case?

11-25-2005, 09:59 AM

In that case, the church and popes can never be wrong. Yet, in history, there has been "bad" popes.

Do you see the problem?

Peter666

11-26-2005, 01:53 PM

Pete Vere is a self appointed expert who received "feelings" regarding Church doctrine in his basement, thus giving him justification for all he says. The man is a modernist fool.

Peter666

11-26-2005, 02:02 PM

You are really stretching now. They use a capital B when referring to Baptism as a noun, and a small b when using it as a verb.

But what you should really do is ask your local priest or seminary professor to give their interpretation as I have done. Those who I spoke to in the Novus Ordo rite believe in salvation for children baptized and unbaptized, thus denying original sin and the words of Christ Himself who said that all must be baptized by water to be saved. They are heretics. I cannot entrust my soul to them lest I be damned.

And there is much to be said about Limbo and its theological development, but that merely gives more credence to the fact that "hoping for the salvation of the unbaptized" is a modernist innovation because the great theologians did not even have to consider it.

Peter666

11-26-2005, 02:11 PM

Catholics may inquire and study other religions only in a historical/abstract context. Practicing them or lending credence to their belief is contrary to Catholic teaching and is a definite no no.

The other picture I had didn't seem to download, but it was a group of nuns (in secular clothing) attending a "mass" by a priest next to a statue of Buddha. It is hard to express the extreme craziness of this to a true Catholic. It would be like saying I am the incarnation of Buddha while going around crushing bugs and flowers and beating up people for fun.

BluffTHIS!

11-26-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Practicing them

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
or lending credence to their belief

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Because even the wrong beliefs of other religions spring from an impetus to find God, an impetus that in those religions which adhere to the demands of the natural law, can only come from God. Similarly it is evident that respect must be given to religions "of the book", that is to Islam and especially to Judaism for the parts of their beliefs that are the same as ours.

From a letter from Pope Benedict XVI to Cardinal Walter Kaspar, the President of the Pontifical Commission For Relations With The Jews on the 40th anniversary of the document Nostra Aetate, 26 October 2005:

"The Jewish-Christian dialogue must continue to enrich and deepen the bonds of friendship which have developed, while preaching and catechesis must be committed to ensuring that our mutual relations are presented in the light of the principles set forth by the Council. As we look to the future, I express my hope that both in theological dialogue and in everyday contacts and collaboration, Christians and Jews will offer an ever more compelling shared witness to the One God and his commandments, the sanctity of life, the promotion of human dignity, the rights of the family and the need to build a world of justice, reconciliation and peace for future generations."

vulturesrow

11-26-2005, 04:04 PM

BluffTHIS!

11-26-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Pete Vere is a self appointed expert who received "feelings" regarding Church doctrine in his basement, thus giving him justification for all he says. The man is a modernist fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

He holds a licentiate degree in canon law (J.C.L.), which thus qualified him to write a book about the canonical history of SSPX.

11-26-2005, 04:42 PM

Heya Peter666,
[ QUOTE ]
Catholics may inquire and study other religions only in a historical/abstract context. Practicing them or lending credence to their belief is contrary to Catholic teaching and is a definite no no.

The other picture I had didn't seem to download, but it was a group of nuns (in secular clothing) attending a "mass" by a priest next to a statue of Buddha. It is hard to express the extreme craziness of this to a true Catholic. It would be like saying I am the incarnation of Buddha while going around crushing bugs and flowers and beating up people for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't address this to me specifically but I felt it was answering my post about what the photo represented and the fact that the Budha is not considered a god in Buddhism. I would say the Buddha statues is not that different to the bust of Voltaire on my desk. It is a moot point whether Voltaire has a place in a church /images/graemlins/smile.gif , but I am certain that I have seen, in churches, some representation of people that were not of either divine origin, angels or saints. Thinking of some knights here as part of some crypt, photos of a deceased, etc.

Don't you worry too much about re-incarnation (a non-buddhist concept) a word coined by followers of Annie Besant (of theosophy fame.. cough... cough) which has created a number of misrepresentations of buddhism in the West. And even if you need to use that word (as a placeholder for a concept, for lack of a better one), the Buddha himself is definitely not reincarnated. He is totally gone and well gone as the canonical text formula clearly say.

Hope this clarifies.

RJT

11-26-2005, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are really stretching now. They use a capital B when referring to Baptism as a noun, and a small b when using it as a verb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to admit my grammar stinks. You are correct in the usage of the Bs, but not in my intended explanation (nor to what, I think, the CCC has in mind.) Here is a brief explanation from one who can better explain it than I.

[ QUOTE ]
A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH

What the Church Has Said About Children Who Die
Without Baptism

Father Peter Gumpel Gives an Overview

VATICAN CITY, 15 DEC. 2004 (ZENIT)

What happens to the souls of children who die
before birth, or shortly after birth, or are
aborted?

Questions of this nature are ever more frequent,
to the point that John Paul II himself, on Oct.
7, asked the International Theological Commission
to study the matter more profoundly.

To better understand the matter at stake, ZENIT
interviewed Father Peter Gumpel, a theologian and
historian who has studied the matter since the
1950s.

“The fate in the hereafter of souls that have not
been baptized seems to be a marginal problem, but
in reality it is at the heart of some dogmatic
theses,” Father Gumpel said.

“According to Catholic doctrine, all are born
with original sin; no one can enjoy the beatific
vision without overcoming original sin. The
normal way is to be baptized; it is an infallible
means to ensure full happiness in the beatific
vision,” the theologian explained.

Q: But, what happens to those who die without
baptism?

Father Gumpel: Although in history there have
been different opinions, the supreme magisterium
of the Church offers very precise documents and
affirmations.

In particular, in the struggle between St.
Augustine and Pelagius, the latter denied
original sin, while Augustine, Doctor of the
Church, asserted its existence. In St.
Augustine’s time, the doctrine existed according
to which outside the Church there was no
salvation, so the belief was that those who were
not baptized, whether adults or newborns, could
not enjoy the salvific vision.

In this context, St. Augustine speaks about
children dying without baptism and thinks that
hell is their destiny, saying that they are
subject to the flames of hell, although adding
that they are “very mitigated flames.” Given this
very harsh consideration, the question arises if
St. Augustine ever considered a substitution to
baptism by water, for example, baptism by desire.

Catechumens who had shown a willingness to enter
the Church, through baptism, perhaps could be
saved. Also catechumens not baptized with water,
but who suffered martyrdom for their faith in
Christ, could undoubtedly be saved. In this case,
the concept of baptism of blood is introduced.

St. Augustine did not consider the question of
persons who wish to enter the Church.

Q: St. Thomas Aquinas proposes a view that is
different from that of St. Augustine. In what way
does it change?

Father Gumpel: Indeed. St. Thomas and the
Scholastics abandon St. Augustine’s theory that
children who are not baptized go to hell, even if
the latter is in a mitigated form, and construct
an intermediate form, known as “limbo.” It is a
theological construction, to explain the
situation of human beings who die and are not in
heaven.

Q: Has this theory of limbo ever been presented
by the Church as a matter of faith?

Father Gumpel: In 1954 I carried out an
exhaustive study, in which I examined all the
arguments in favor of the thesis expressed by the
infallible magisterium done with authority. I
studied all the ecumenical councils, and I came
to the conclusion that “limbo” is not an
obligatory answer.

It is an opinion that has been repeated in the
course of time, without carrying out a critical
historical examination of the ecumenical
councils.

Prior to Vatican II, a schema was prepared,
entitled “To Save in Its Purity the Deposit of
Faith.” In a special way, by the determination of
the Faculty of Theology of Naples, the 11th
chapter was included in the document, which
formally condemned those who attacked “limbo.”

When the plan reached the General Preparatory
Commission, the most important commission for the
preparation of the council, there were such
objections, on the part of cardinals and other
bishops, that it was decided to cancel this
chapter. The commission referred explicitly to
the study I had done, which was later published.

Q: What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church
say on this subject?

Father Gumpel: The Catechism of the Catholic
Church, published in 1992, dedicates No. 1261 to
children who die without Baptism, and one reads
that one can hope that they will attain the
beatific vision.

It is an element of the greatest importance,
which opens the way to a broader point of view,
and it is a pronouncement of the ordinary
magisterium of the Church. We cannot say with
certainty that they will be saved. We can hope,
and the fact that we can hope, as the Catechism
says, is an interpretative key. No one hopes or
can hope legitimately for something one is
certain is impossible.

Q: What is the basis of this hope?

Father Gumpel: The first consideration that must
be made is that, every human being, even if he
was an embryo or fetus in the womb, is part of
the human family and, ontologically, in his
being, has a relationship with all people and,
therefore, also with Jesus Christ, who is the
head of the new humanity, the new Adam.

From sacred Scripture, we know the salvific will
of God. Christ is the redeemer of all and wants
all to be saved. Moreover, Christ founded the
Church, a visible body, and instituted the
sacrament of baptism. And given that baptism is
an infallible means, we must do everything
possible to have people baptized.

But, what do we do with those who, without any
one being at fault, cannot receive the baptism of
water? There must be another means to maintain
God’s salvific plan.

We do not know what this means is. There are many
theories. For example, will very small children
continue to be so after death, or will they have
a different state? Might they not receive a
divine illumination with the possibility of
choosing for or against God?

Others mention the desire of those parents, good
Catholics, who have conceived a child and whom
they would certainly have had baptized if it had
been possible, and wonder if the parents’ desire
or that of the Church is not enough.

Of course, although we cannot indicate with
certainty by what means they could be saved, the
fact remains of their union with Christ and the
universal salvific will. This is the central
point.

Q: Why did the Pope ask the International
Theological Commission to study the matter more
profoundly?

Father Gumpel: Today the problem is more complex
because, with laws that have legalized abortion,
life is taken away from many children who might
have desired baptism.

I don’t know the Holy Father’s intention in
detail, but I don’t think he wants to go back.
The question is rather of a pastoral nature
because, when I wrote those articles in 1954,
there were few cases. But today, with the
multiplication of the number of abortions and the
attempts to manipulate fetuses, the number of
human beings implicated has greatly increased.

Q: Finally, the question remains of the mystery
of the soul and its destiny.

Father Gumpel: Yes. We take seriously a very
small human being, just conceived, and call him a
human person. If this is so, what will be his
final state? Will he be a fetus? Will he grow? It
is true that he is already separated from the
body but if we say that he has a soul, how will
this soul be? Will the soul remain in the state
of the fetus, of the child, or will it develop?

As Christians we clearly reject any eugenic
approach. Handicapped children, for example, do
not remain with their limitation when they enter
the beatific vision, because there is no longer a
body, and the soul does not have handicaps.

The souls of these children do not have obstacles
of the body, and can reach the full development
of their mental faculties. Therefore, there are
many reasons why it is worthwhile to have hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

11-26-2005, 09:25 PM

Dera RJT,

[ QUOTE ]
Father Peter Gumpel Gives an Overview

VATICAN CITY, 15 DEC. 2004 (ZENIT)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry you feel it expresses your opinion better than you can.

I find this one of the most obscene post I have seen on 2+2, and that includes the whole of OOT.

It should be condemned by all. It is a form of terrorism with eternal effect.

Talk about a design fault by the all-loving one!

This is not a flame but a call to wake up and raise against religion which demands such beliefs to all people that remotely understand, or have a conception of the meaning, of the word "love".

Unfortunatley I can only "hope" (and that is a cop-out, like its use in the post from RJT) that people would heed the call. Humanity is doomed, and so-well fashioned in its supposed creator's image, that it doesn't even realise the enormity of what is being said.

Again, this is not a flame, but I cannot convey strongly enough, my reaction, my abhorrence to such crap.

RJT

11-26-2005, 09:41 PM

MG,

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. (Well, I know what you are saying in general. But, I have no idea why this particular post leads to such a reply.)

RJT

11-26-2005, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

MG,

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. (Well, I know what you are saying in general. But, I have no idea why this particular post leads to such a reply.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

The worst is that I believe you.

RJT

11-26-2005, 09:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

MG,

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. (Well, I know what you are saying in general. But, I have no idea why this particular post leads to such a reply.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

The worst is that I believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am serious. The only thing I can get from your post is that my quote sounds to you like double talk. If that is the case then you don’t understand it.

RJT

11-26-2005, 09:58 PM

I think it is saying exactly the opposite of how you seem to be reading it.

Peter666

11-26-2005, 11:11 PM

Walter Kaspar!?!! I think you have to do a serious study of the Church Hierarchy. He is the Cardinal who says that there is no need for Jews to convert, and I suspect he was instrumental in the Balamand decree which stopped proselytyzing of the Orthodox (contrary to Jesus's direct command!)

Ratzinger is JP II light. He was a modernist theologian at Vatican II and admits that the Church has changed in the direction envisioned by those theologians.

And I guess you would also disagree with St. Paul who said that the gods of the gentiles are devils.

"the promotion of human dignity" I hate these JP II catch phrases which mean nothing.

Peter666

11-26-2005, 11:16 PM

Yes, fully approved by modernist Vatican. Maybe they will give him a clown nose too along with his degree.

Of course, there are independant priests with docotorates in the same fields from Vatican Universities who have already refuted the claims. But one only needs some common sense and knowledge of Moral Theology to crush the slander.

Peter666

11-26-2005, 11:30 PM

"Of course, although we cannot indicate with
certainty by what means they could be saved, the
fact remains of their union with Christ and the
universal salvific will. This is the central
point."

This is exactly the point which I believe JP II will be indicted on heresy.

Let me put it to you in layman terms: Jesus wants everybody to be saved. Nobody in their right mind would not want to be saved if they saw heaven. Therefore, everybody has the implicit desire to be saved, even if they don't know it, including infants. Therefore, all will be saved by Jesus in some sort of Baptism. That's JP II

Also because modernism has various degrees, you will find all sorts of opinions on this matter within the Vatican today. They have ceased to be of ONE mind in the One Catholic Church.

BluffTHIS!

11-26-2005, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"the promotion of human dignity" I hate these JP II catch phrases which mean nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very sad then because such phrases signify carrying out the gospel to the fullest degree. And that is a main purpose of the ecumenism that you so deride, not just theological discussions, but cooperating together with those of other faiths to bring about a more just society where God is seen to have a presence.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

1 Cor. 13:1-3

BluffTHIS!

11-27-2005, 12:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But one only needs some common sense and knowledge of Moral Theology to crush the slander.

[/ QUOTE ]

A knowledge of moral theology isn't sufficient to rebut canonical matters, although the SSPX tries mightily to insist that every point of dispute is doctrinal.

But hey, 50 "independent" priests and 4 "independent" bishops (independent=disobediently refusing the authority of the supreme pontiff) must be right. There is just no way the weight of theological and canonical opinion of 3000+ bishops and 100,000+ priests in the church could instead be correct.

RJT

11-27-2005, 12:44 AM

Exactly what you fear in CCC is happening and is going to happen. So you guys living in the 1950’s better bunker down or just go off on your own already. Or take your best shot with the heresy accusations and demand an inquiry.

IMO, this is just the beginning of further discussion about the soul of the unborn and the infant. That is as it should be. This is a direct reflection of the need to address these issues relative to today’s society. This was not necessary at Trent. It is necessary now.

If you think details such as these have already been decided, you are in error. Our Faith is still “evolving” so to speak. We are only 2000 years old. We are babies ourselves. So long as nothing conflicts with Jesus’ words, new details will emerge.

For God to give a fetus a soul and then no kind of free-will-type-thing (or something similar to what Gumpel suggests) is absurd. The same with the infant. If an infant has the same rules as a fetus and if neither is “allowed” a shot , then abortion is fine.

This discussion will take years (perhaps hundreds of years). For now we say we don’t know. Eventually, our Church might come to a definitive doctrine (Holy Spirit willing). It might not ever though, too.

(I was being partly facetious when I suggested science might aid us in this regard. It is not out of the question though, perhaps our answer might indeed come from science.)

carlo

11-27-2005, 02:48 AM

Baptism, what is it in reality? The baptism performed by John the Baptist, what was it's reality?

The "baptism by water" was the "old" way of an experience of spiritual sight. At the time of John baptism consisted of immersing the baptised in water for a period of time and thus loosening a higher spiritual body(I believe "Manas" in oriental knowledge and the "ether body"(not to be mixed up with the ether of physics) in western occult knowledge. This resulted in a "picture panorama" of the spoiritual world which contained a history of a man's life. People who have experienced near death in our day(near drowning,shock,etc.) often speak of this review of their life.

At that time this spiritual body was loose enough in individuals that it could be done without causing death. Nowdays it would be very dangerous to attempt such a maneauver as this "manas" has become more connected to the physical body.

This "initiation" can only be accomplished at the present time by a man consciously experiencing "illumination" through thinking and here is the "Holy Spirit". Christ came and began the "baptism by fire" which is the karmic work of individuals via the Lord of Karma who is the Christ Being.

Bap[tism will continue to be debated in the Catholic Church and indeed in other Christian churches for in the present understanding via the intellect there is much left unsaid. It is their Karmic Work.

The post by RJT reveals this compassion by a Catholic theologian who does understand that he does not understand baptism but is working on it. At root is that to condemn a lost infant to perdition because of earthly Place(nation,race,circustances,etc.) is repellent to this theologian.

"Condemnatory Christianity" is the work of men but the compassion of Christ is working in them via the Holy Spirit in order to ascertain the truths involved.

Yes, the Catholic Church has loosened what one might call a dogmatic belief without compassionate consideration to what one may call a kinder, gentler approach. This church and indeed all men are in motion and the "yoke is light and the burden easy" of Christ.

I'd liken this church to a young boy who wears his Father's overcoat which is a comical picture of a coat that reaches the floor and wears his Father's large hat. The Catholic Church, which was begun by those who had direct perception of the Spirituality of Christ received this "Toga of Responsibility" which was Rome and the Caesars. The boy grows and someday will redeem this cloak through their works.

This is something that can be admired by understanding men.This life is in motion and takes "Time", each man receives his work, gladly accepted prior to incarnation into physicallity.

carlo

Peter666

11-27-2005, 04:20 AM

"And that is a main purpose of the ecumenism that you so deride, not just theological discussions, but cooperating together with those of other faiths to bring about a more just society where God is seen to have a presence."

Yes, which I deried and the Catholic Church derides. Here from the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI:

From a political/social perspective:

"Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?"

From the theological perspective:

"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."

And last but not least, that thing called LOVE (or charity):

"These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."

So again, this whole notion of yours and the modernists concerning "ecumenism" contradict Catholic doctrine. The only point of communing with non-Catholics in a public manner is to convert them to Catholicism.

Peter666

11-27-2005, 04:37 AM

If science ever proves what you are asserting, then the Catholic Church will be proven to be wrong in its infallible doctrine, and thus is not God's Church. That's when I become Buddhist or Muslim or whatever (depends who offers me the most virgins).

And this from the priest in your article:

"We cannot say with certainty that they will be saved. We can hope, and the fact that we can hope, as the Catechism says, is an interpretative key. No one hopes or can hope legitimately for something one is certain is impossible."

Thus proving my point.

Either the pre-Vatican II Church teaching is wrong, or the CCC and Modernist Catholic Church is wrong. They both perfectly contradict each other.

Peter666

11-27-2005, 04:43 AM

"I find this one of the most obscene post I have seen on 2+2, and that includes the whole of OOT."

"I cannot convey strongly enough, my reaction, my abhorrence to such crap."

So does this mean you don't quite agree with the doctrine of Original Sin? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

11-27-2005, 06:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is saying exactly the opposite of how you seem to be reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya RJT,

No, I am sure this is not so. Following your comment above I have carefully read and re-read it, just in case.

In a post following the one quoted above you showed that the realisation is starting to dawn upon you (If you allow me to be as presumptuous for the sake of the discussion).

I will not dwell on the older version of the doctrine (the mitigated flames/heat!!!), but look at the final position as it is presented in the interview.

The way I understand our different view points, just about the non baptised souls, mind you, as I am sure we have other differences as well: /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You seem to tolerate an equivocal position by the church, whereas I demand a immediate and formal withdrawal of the idea or concept. Hope is something we give hopeless to make their lot easier right now. I don't find it satisfactory. To me I have to equate it with a form of spiritual terrorism. I do understand that a statement on non-baptised people having the same rights as baptized ones, will ultimately force other retractions by the church as well, all rooted in the irreconciliability of good/god and evil, present in a number of monotheist religions. The fundamental issue in my opinion. It is in the interest of the church, sadly, to keep and gain adherents by this naive yet powerful terrorism towards the less educated/liberated. That is the position from which my diatribe came from. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful, even if misdirected, posts. It does make this thread interesting and may set more people on the way of liberation and freedom from superstitions and dogma, than the reverse. Again, imo. /images/graemlins/smile.gif