Couple questions about Christianity

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]

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]

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]

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!]

[ 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]

[ 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 ]

Nice ad hominem.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] , 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]

[ 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 ]

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.