Couple questions about Christianity

[Peter666]

"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?