Couple questions about Christianity

[carlo]

Baptism, what is it in reality? The baptism performed by John the Baptist, what was it's reality?

The "baptism by water" was the "old" way of an experience of spiritual sight. At the time of John baptism consisted of immersing the baptised in water for a period of time and thus loosening a higher spiritual body(I believe "Manas" in oriental knowledge and the "ether body"(not to be mixed up with the ether of physics) in western occult knowledge. This resulted in a "picture panorama" of the spoiritual world which contained a history of a man's life. People who have experienced near death in our day(near drowning,shock,etc.) often speak of this review of their life.

At that time this spiritual body was loose enough in individuals that it could be done without causing death. Nowdays it would be very dangerous to attempt such a maneauver as this "manas" has become more connected to the physical body.

This "initiation" can only be accomplished at the present time by a man consciously experiencing "illumination" through thinking and here is the "Holy Spirit". Christ came and began the "baptism by fire" which is the karmic work of individuals via the Lord of Karma who is the Christ Being.

Bap[tism will continue to be debated in the Catholic Church and indeed in other Christian churches for in the present understanding via the intellect there is much left unsaid. It is their Karmic Work.

The post by RJT reveals this compassion by a Catholic theologian who does understand that he does not understand baptism but is working on it. At root is that to condemn a lost infant to perdition because of earthly Place(nation,race,circustances,etc.) is repellent to this theologian.

"Condemnatory Christianity" is the work of men but the compassion of Christ is working in them via the Holy Spirit in order to ascertain the truths involved.

Yes, the Catholic Church has loosened what one might call a dogmatic belief without compassionate consideration to what one may call a kinder, gentler approach. This church and indeed all men are in motion and the "yoke is light and the burden easy" of Christ.

I'd liken this church to a young boy who wears his Father's overcoat which is a comical picture of a coat that reaches the floor and wears his Father's large hat. The Catholic Church, which was begun by those who had direct perception of the Spirituality of Christ received this "Toga of Responsibility" which was Rome and the Caesars. The boy grows and someday will redeem this cloak through their works.

This is something that can be admired by understanding men.This life is in motion and takes "Time", each man receives his work, gladly accepted prior to incarnation into physicallity.

carlo

[Peter666]

"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."

Yes, which I deried and the Catholic Church derides. Here from the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI:

From a political/social perspective:

"Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?"

From the theological perspective:

"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."

And last but not least, that thing called LOVE (or charity):

"These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."

So again, this whole notion of yours and the modernists concerning "ecumenism" contradict Catholic doctrine. The only point of communing with non-Catholics in a public manner is to convert them to Catholicism.

[Peter666]

If science ever proves what you are asserting, then the Catholic Church will be proven to be wrong in its infallible doctrine, and thus is not God's Church. That's when I become Buddhist or Muslim or whatever (depends who offers me the most virgins).

And this from the priest in your article:

"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."

Thus proving my point.

Either the pre-Vatican II Church teaching is wrong, or the CCC and Modernist Catholic Church is wrong. They both perfectly contradict each other.

[Peter666]

"I find this one of the most obscene post I have seen on 2+2, and that includes the whole of OOT."

"I cannot convey strongly enough, my reaction, my abhorrence to such crap."

So does this mean you don't quite agree with the doctrine of Original Sin? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya RJT,

No, I am sure this is not so. Following your comment above I have carefully read and re-read it, just in case.

In a post following the one quoted above you showed that the realisation is starting to dawn upon you (If you allow me to be as presumptuous for the sake of the discussion).

I will not dwell on the older version of the doctrine (the mitigated flames/heat!!!), but look at the final position as it is presented in the interview.

The way I understand our different view points, just about the non baptised souls, mind you, as I am sure we have other differences as well: [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You seem to tolerate an equivocal position by the church, whereas I demand a immediate and formal withdrawal of the idea or concept. Hope is something we give hopeless to make their lot easier right now. I don't find it satisfactory. To me I have to equate it with a form of spiritual terrorism. I do understand that a statement on non-baptised people having the same rights as baptized ones, will ultimately force other retractions by the church as well, all rooted in the irreconciliability of good/god and evil, present in a number of monotheist religions. The fundamental issue in my opinion. It is in the interest of the church, sadly, to keep and gain adherents by this naive yet powerful terrorism towards the less educated/liberated. That is the position from which my diatribe came from. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful, even if misdirected, posts. It does make this thread interesting and may set more people on the way of liberation and freedom from superstitions and dogma, than the reverse. Again, imo. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
"I find this one of the most obscene post I have seen on 2+2, and that includes the whole of OOT."

"I cannot convey strongly enough, my reaction, my abhorrence to such crap."

So does this mean you don't quite agree with the doctrine of Original Sin? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with neither the concept of sin, nor the originality of it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So again, this whole notion of yours and the modernists concerning "ecumenism" contradict Catholic doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice rhetorical techniques. I agreed that for a catholic to practice another religion is wrong, but the ecumenical activities such as theological discussions and cooperating to achieve christian/religious goals in society was right. Whereupon you then pretended that I had said participating in the worship functions of non-catholics was OK as was joining together in some type of pan-christian/religious organization with a view to uniting even when it meant denying catholic doctrine. And then you offered quotations to rebut those positions which I never asserted.

Very clever.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Either the pre-Vatican II Church teaching is wrong, or the CCC and Modernist Catholic Church is wrong. They both perfectly contradict each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all your arguments come down to trying to prove the Catechism of the Catholic Church in error because of what you interpret its position to be regarding the salvation of unborn children, then that is a truly pathetic indictment of SSPX and its followers who need to justify their disobedience and refusal of communion with Rome over liturgical issues on the basis of such flimsy doctrinal views. Again keeping in mind that you are intentionally misconstruing the words of the CCC to make your illusory point.

Not only do you place so much emphasis on "details" like Not Ready, you get the details wrong. And the worst thing is that you have totally taken your focus off the gospel.