DS (and others), please expand on this thought:

[BluffTHIS!]

The edifice as you put it, can only be fundametally flawed by the use of far-fetched axioms, which are accepted without 100% proof, or by internal logical contradictions of various subsections of theology (which doesn't exist in catholic theology). I think that you will find that the catholic views I express are fully in line with catholic teaching represented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Of the catholic posters here, only Peter666 would disagree with some of my posts because he is a traditionalist catholic belonging to a sect that rejects most of Vatican II, especially regarding liturgical changes, which they view as doctrinal in nature.

Actually the protestant doctrine of the preisthood of all believers, with its assumption that all christians can validly interpret scripture, does not give them extra outs. It only leads to a continual process in time where there are more and more splits and disagreements, evidenced by the great variety of protestant denominations that hold contrary views on fundamental points of christian doctrine. Some of these denominations, like the episcopal, lutheran and methodist ones, are in many ways closer to the catholic church in theology than to the fundamentalist/calvinist based denominations. Thus protestant denominations lack an authentic interpreter of scripture and doctrine, and this leads to certain logical contradictions in their theology. You can search the archives for a couple threads I started entitled "A question for protestants" regarding these matters.

Regarding the pope reinterpreting theology, his ability to infallibly define doctrine, called an ex cathedra pronouncement, is not really creating new doctrine, but only more clearly defining doctrine that has always been believed, often through the 2nd source of reveleation, oral tradition, called Holy Tradition (as opposed to man-made traditions or customary practices). Also of course he might occasionally make lesser pronouncements, but also higly authoritative, clearly explaining catholic doctrine in regards to matters which have not come up in the past, such as changes in science and catholic ethics regarding it such human cloning for example. All of this is in contrast for example to the prophet and head of the council of elders of the mormon church, who by their doctrine can receieve new doctrinal revelations from God. Most christians including catholics, believe that all general revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, although special reveleation could be given to an individuals which would not be official doctrine even if accepted as legitimate.

[BluffTHIS!]

To put all this in a gambling perspective with David's statment that catholics are "less nuts", then perhaps a good way to view this is that catholics are blackjack players and the rest are playing the big wheel. Of couse I would like to think that we cathlolics are card counters as well and thus have a positve EV. And if we have theological Thorp to back us up, then Thomas Aquinas comes the closest.

[IronUnkind]

I'm confused. Do you think that there is a monolithic protestantism or not? You characterize it as riven by factionalism, yet you criticize it as if it is uniform.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus by catholic theology, with the exception noted, baptism is necessary but insufficient by itself for salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do unbaptized protestants go?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus by catholic theology, with the exception noted, baptism is necessary but insufficient by itself for salvation

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do unbaptized protestants go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Baptism of desire is the means by which non-baptized whether believers or not may be saved. Along with living a "good" life in accordance with the Natural Law if they are not believers (search the archives or google for natural law if you don't understand). Basically baptism of desire means that if they heard and believed in the gospel then they would want to be baptized.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. Do you think that there is a monolithic protestantism or not? You characterize it as riven by factionalism, yet you criticize it as if it is uniform.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the very fact of their divided theology comes flaws which they all share. And the further down the line of spitting off one another and starting new denominations, then the more flaws an individual denomination has.

Here are links to old threads regarding some of these matters. And please don't bump those old threads. Just start a new one or reply here if you have a question on something there.



Question For Protestants

What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get

Another Question For Protestants

[Peter666]

Oh, just tell him the truth: Straight to Hell! Or limbo if lucky.

Iron Unkind asked a very specific question. One who is unbaptized, and that includes baptism of desire as explained above, cannot enter into heaven. BluffThis is charitably assuming that the unbaptized Protestant really wants to know the truth and seeks it, and is also free from mortal (serious) sin. Thus they can enter into heaven through baptism of desire.

The catch is the serious sin part. Once one reaches the age of reason (around 6 years old normally) their first "free act of will" will either be in accordance with God or not. This is always a serious decision. From this decision and onwards, they take on some responsibility for their willful actions. It gets very messy from here.

If they are unbaptized, die, and have not made a willful decision (children, mentally handicapped) they will go to limbo (a state of natural happiness). If they are unbaptized and have made a willful decision, they will either go to limbo if it was a good decision, or Hell if it was a bad decision.

However, before falling into despair, it is also doctrine that every human being will receive enough grace to save their soul from Hell, IF they act in accordance with it. It is up to us to reject it or accept it by avoiding or commitng sin.