Couple questions about Christianity
 

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?

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

Anyone?

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

To answer:

1. Neither. Those people who died with a good conscience and no sins against the commandments or natural law that were not repented for either went to purgatory or limbo. Heaven was not open until the Ressurection of Christ.

2. They get the benefit of the doubt but do not go to Heaven unless they fit the criteria above and would have wanted to be baptized if possible. Without the missionaries providing grace with the sacraments, it is very difficult to get to Heaven.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

DD,

May I hijack this thread for a second? (Especially since I think Peter answered your question).


Peter,

I got the feeling in your post under the abortion thread that you felt that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church had some parts in it that you considered heresy. Yet, this statement here of yours is similar to wording of the CCC regarding non baptized infants and limbo (or rather CCC not talking about limbo and infants): “ They get the benefit of the doubt…”. Perhaps it is the rest of your sentence “… unless they fit the criteria above and would have wanted to be baptized if possible”, that is not included and because it is not included is heretical? Is this what you were saying there? If not, then what was your point back then regarding non-baptized infants and heresy?

I was going to start a new thread, and we can if you want - we might have to - we can also discuss your new debate with Bluff regarding doctrine if need be. Seems you are itching to get into this matter (heresy) anyway.

RJT

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

I feel it is my duty to inform that these beliefs are more Catholic then Christian and the vast majority of Protestant demoninations don't believe in purgatory - soulsleeping is another matter, but there isn't a single case in the OT or NT for a Purgatory.

RB

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

Re heaven and hell, search for my post under the recent topic "A bizarre twist on morality (abortion)".

David

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

<font color="blue"> Heaven was not open until the Ressurection of Christ. </font>

Then why was it created before Christ?

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

I wish I followed these things more intently, so I knew the exact subject matter you guys are talking about. Because without this knowledge it seems so laughable to declare one piece of heresay as "heresay", and not the rest.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I followed these things more intently, so I knew the exact subject matter you guys are talking about. Because without this knowledge it seems so laughable to declare one piece of heresay as "heresay", and not the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I can imagine. That is why I am hesitant to get into this discussion with a new thread. It is really a matter of details within the Christian community and not quite sure if this forum is the proper place to get into a “family feud”. Although, I might post anyway, if for no other reason than for David’s entertainment. I think he enjoys the show, as some do in watching professional wrestling (or like Kramer on Seinfeld enjoys a “cat fight”.)

RJT

p.s. To whiskeytown, Sorry, I didn’t mean to omit the protestant version when I said that Peter pretty much answered the OP’s question. I am not very familiar with details of Protestants and hadn’t realized this was the case.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

[ 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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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?

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

[ 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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

"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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

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.

ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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.

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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.

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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.

de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ 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.

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This is not a flame. I would not be the one to light the first match.

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

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".

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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...e/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. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ 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...e/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. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"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...ds20gospel.jpg

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

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

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. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]