Couple questions about Christianity

[RJT]

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 ]

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]

[ 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]

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

[Peter666]

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]

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]

"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!]

[ 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!]

[ 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]

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.)