Blah blah Catholicism blah blah

[Jew]

blah blah blah Christ blah blah blah

Please explain to me how this seemingly endless recitation of your delusional belief system constitutes news.

It's news to people who have not studied Catholic theology. I'm not Catholic, but personally I find the nuances of Church teaching intriguing.

[Lord Zentei]

That's why We as Christians believe thet they are ultimately left to the mercy of God. We hope and pray the God in his mercy accepts those innocent babes who through no fault of thier own died without recieving the sanctifying grace of Baptism similary we believe that those who have not heard the Gospel of Christ, who through no fault of themselves did not recieve Baptism and lived virtuously, are left to the ultimate fate of God. We do not know if they are in heaven, but we leave open the possibility that god through his infinite mercy will save those who were even taught about Christ through no fault of thier own. Just a Jesus told that Robber who repented of His sins that he woulds see Christ in heaven.

As the Catchism says, that we as Christians are bound to the Sacraments for our slavation, God by being God is bound by them and he can save whom he wants who are outside the Christian faith.

I think you meant to say "God by being God is not bound by them...", right?

Spreading a wholesome moral philosophy is all well and good. But I'm not entirely sure how a ritual is supposed to make you a more moral person. But is it not God who grants these Graces through the ritual? And could he not do so without a ritual?

These acts are acts of perfect Contrition (Marriage being the lone exception), that we are going to Christ through the Sacraments and telling him that we are not worthy to recieve such things for we are all sinners in the eyes of God but are willing to accept these gifts that he has freely given us and with and open heart and open mind we are accepting those Saving Graces which help us and comfort us in the slaying of our own personal demons. This is double true for the Blessed Sacrament and of Penanance and Reconciliation for we are recieving Christ in Both body and Soul.

In other words, babtism and other Sacramental rituals makes it more likely that you will enter Heaven, because God chooses to bestow Grace upon those that go through the Sacramental rituals, moreso than upon those who are simply ordinarily humble and moral. Thus there is a double standard.

Otherwise, there is no need for the Sacrament itself per se, only moral teaching. It's the one or the other.

[Darth Wong]

blah blah blah Christ blah blah blah

Please explain to me how this seemingly endless recitation of your delusional belief system constitutes news.

It's news to people who have not studied Catholic theology. I'm not Catholic, but personally I find the nuances of Church teaching intriguing.

And how are nuances of church teaching news?

[Lord Zentei]

Please explain to me how this seemingly endless recitation of your delusional belief system constitutes news.

It's news to people who have not studied Catholic theology. I'm not Catholic, but personally I find the nuances of Church teaching intriguing.

And how are nuances of church teaching news?

Well, seeing as I have been guilty of participating in this thread, I should apologize if it has veered away from the intent of the forum.

(Perhaps it should be split and moved to SLAM or something.)

[Jew]

Please explain to me how this seemingly endless recitation of your delusional belief system constitutes news.

It's news to people who have not studied Catholic theology. I'm not Catholic, but personally I find the nuances of Church teaching intriguing.

And how are nuances of church teaching news?

They are appropriate background material that is helpful in understanding what the Church is currently doing in its review of the doctrine regarding the fate of unbaptized babies. In order to understand why the Church is currently undertaking to clarify this matter of doctrine we must first understand why it is important to know the answer.

Since we're dealing with the afterlife, we consequently must understand Church teaching on the afterlife (heaven and hell, etc.), which brings up the concept of original sin, grace, and the Sacraments.

It's just something that is useful background material to put the current actions of the Church in their proper historical and theological context. Whether you are Catholic or not, understanding Catholic doctrine helps you understand the Catholic Church's actions.

[EmperorSolo51]

endless recitation of your delusional belief system constitutes news.

If You you find this bothersome, Mike, then I ask kindly to have this thread split.

[Big Phil]

Where the fuck does the church come up with this shit, and who the fuck knows about it? I spent 12 years in Catholic schools, and they NEVER talked about hell, purgatory, limbo, etc.

They never talked about Purgatory?? I'm not sure what school you went too, but Purgatory has been declared Dogma for atleast 600 years when it was reaffirmed at Trent in 1546 and was the teaching of the Church and Spoken many a Pope since at least Nicea with the Writings of the Early Church Fathers. In fact if you read 2nd Maccabees chapter 12, verse 42-45, there is a beautiful seen where Judas Maccabeeus and his fellow Macabees are going around removing pagan symbols from these dead Hebrews who fought for the Greek Armies and he tells them that they should pray for thier souls. If there wasn't a purgatory then, There would be no reason for any modern day Jew or Christian to pray for the dead for they would be either in Hell or Heaven.

Apparently I went to Catholic schools that weren't too big on teaching church dogma.

[EmperorSolo51]

In other words, babtism and other Sacramental rituals makes it more likely that you will enter Heaven, because God chooses to bestow Grace upon those that go through the Sacramental rituals, moreso than upon those who are simply ordinarily humble and moral. Thus there is a double standard.

Otherwise, there is no need for the Sacrament itself per se, only moral teaching. It's the one or the other.

I know That I'm cutting and Pasting, But I found this Answer from an apologist from Catholic Answers that best answers your Question and at the same time best explains what I've tried to explain for lack of better words.

Those who are not Catholic can be saved. It is a general theological principle that God gives all men an opportunity for salvation, since he wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), and he is a just God.

Sections 846-848 of the Catechism deal specifically with the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church.:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Even the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people (Mt 28:19-20)…all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1.).

Concerning the salvation of non-Catholic Christians, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1260) says “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.” It is not a salvation outside of Christ, but one through his grace.

Thus, a faithful Protestant, who truly seeks God, but who had seen no evidence or insufficient evidence for the Catholic faith, such a person could be innocently ignorant. On the other hand, if a faithful Protestant, who truly seeks God, knew in his heart the truths of the faith, he would become a Catholic (as I did). Whereas, if a Protestant is not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but knowingly and willingly rejects the truth and dies outside of it, he cannot be saved. In short, what you know can hurt you.

[Lord Zentei]

In other words, babtism and other Sacramental rituals makes it more likely that you will enter Heaven, because God chooses to bestow Grace upon those that go through the Sacramental rituals, moreso than upon those who are simply ordinarily humble and moral. Thus there is a double standard.

Otherwise, there is no need for the Sacrament itself per se, only moral teaching. It's the one or the other.

I know That I'm cutting and Pasting, But I found this Answer from an apologist from Catholic Answers that best answers your Question and at the same time best explains what I've tried to explain for lack of better words.

That is not a problem.

<snippa>

Thus, a faithful Protestant, who truly seeks God, but who had seen no evidence or insufficient evidence for the Catholic faith, such a person could be innocently ignorant. On the other hand, if a faithful Protestant, who truly seeks God, knew in his heart the truths of the faith, he would become a Catholic (as I did). Whereas, if a Protestant is not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but knowingly and willingly rejects the truth and dies outside of it, he cannot be saved. In short, what you know can hurt you.

Ah. More evidence that missionaries need to be shot on sight.


Let's see:

Ignorant + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Heaven
Ignorant + Virtuous + Babtised : Heaven
Ignorant + Sinner + Unbabtised : Hell
Ignorant + Sinner + Babtised : Hell

Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Hell
Educated + Virtuous + Babtised : Heaven
Educated + Sinner + Unbabtised : Hell
Educated + Sinner + Babtised : Hell

I think I got that about right. The educated have a score of one out of four, the uneducated two out of four, so perhaps you should stop trying to explain all of this stuff before it is too late.

Though I can see that the babtised get two out of four while the unbabtised get only one. Bit of a dichotomy, there. So the best course would be to be babtised and ignorant, I guess. So much for the benefit of rational inquiry.

There is still a double standard though, and your link basically acnowledges it:

Ignorant + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Heaven
Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Hell

If God is willing and able to bestow grace for a Virtuous act or Innocence, he must choose to withhold it if he does not bestow it upon the equally Virtuous or Innocent educated man, since God is the only source of grace. This seems to be in contradiction with the postulate that God wants all to be saved.

[EmperorSolo51]

There is still a double standard though, and your link basically acnowledges it:

Ignorant + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Heaven
Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised : Hell

If God is willing and able to bestow grace for a Virtuous act or Innocence, he must choose to withhold it if he does not bestow it upon the equally Virtuous or Innocent educated man, since God is the only source of grace. This seems to be in contradiction with the postulate that God wants all to be saved.

I think the closest Example I can give of this notion is in C.s. Lewis "The Chronicles of narnia", where the Calormene Soldier who is virtuous and righteous loves his faith in Tesh so much that he is willing to enter into the forbidden sanctuary of Tesh and is Killed. The Calormene soldier dies and ends up in Heaven with aslan. He shocked about what has happened and asks if it is really true that the God of The Caolormenes is really Aslan. Aslan replies that the God of the Calormenes and Tesh are two distinct individuals. One False and the other The True God of Narnia. Aslan tells the young man that all of the Good and Virtuous things and kept oaths he swore, he did in the name of Tesh and all of The bad things people who worship did are done in the name of Tesh and all of the bad things that those who serve aslan did are done in the name of Tesh.

When it comes down to it, it's all about sincerity and love For God and the knowledge of righteousness. I believe that through catholicism, is where we get the fullness and richness of Christianity and handed to us by Christ through the Apostles and ECF and I accept that there are those who by not thier own fault ether through upbringing are not-Christian and may be saved by his graces but that Doesn't mean as a Christian I shoudn't proclaim the Evangelium. And I think that's where we as Catholics stand of that issue in my honest opinion.

[EmperorSolo51]

Aslan tells the young man that all of the Good and Virtuous things and kept oaths he swore, he did in the name of Tesh and all of The bad things people who worship did are done in the name of Tesh and all of the bad things that those who serve aslan did are done in the name of Tesh.

That should Read:

Aslan tells the young man that all of the Good and Virtuous things and kept oaths he swore to Tesh, he did in the name of Aslan and all of The bad things people who worship did are done in the name of Tesh and all of the bad things that those who serve aslan did are done in the name of Tesh.

[Lord Zentei]

When it comes down to it, it's all about sincerity and love For God and the knowledge of righteousness. I believe that through catholicism, is where we get the fullness and richness of Christianity and handed to us by Christ through the Apostles and ECF and I accept that there are those who by not thier own fault ether through upbringing are not-Christian and may be saved by his graces but that Doesn't mean as a Christian I shoudn't proclaim the Evangelium. And I think that's where we as Catholics stand of that issue in my honest opinion.

In other words, you resolve the issue by having those being educated in the matters of the Evangelium more likely to be Virtuous than others, and that this increased probability outweighing the probability that those not educated in matters of the Evangelium rejecting babtism. That would solve the logical issue of the spreading of the Evangelium reducing one's chances.

However, to also eliminate the issue of the double standard that I raised earlier, the set "Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised" must specifically be empty.

[EmperorSolo51]

In other words, you resolve the issue by having those being educated in the matters of the Evangelium more likely to be Virtuous than others, and that this increased probability outweighing the probability that those not educated in matters of the Evangelium rejecting babtism. That would solve the logical issue of the spreading of the Evangelium reducing one's chances.

However, to also eliminate the issue of the double standard that I raised earlier, the set "Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised" must specifically be empty.

What I Probobly am about about to say next will not score me any brownie points with anyone on this board. If you Become sufficiently Educated in the Gospels and in the message of Christ, and do not become baptised in the name of the father, the son, and Holy Spirit, you by extension are rejecting the the New and everlsasting covanant with that The father Through the death of his son has made to the world. By doing so, technically you are apostasixing and therefore are damnable.

[LordShaithis]

In other news, if you make fun of my imaginary friend, he'll beat you up.

[chaoschristian]

What I Probobly am about about to say next will not score me any brownie points with anyone on this board. If you Become sufficiently Educated in the Gospels and in the message of Christ, and do not become baptised in the name of the father, the son, and Holy Spirit, you by extension are rejecting the the New and everlsasting covanant with that The father Through the death of his son has made to the world. By doing so, technically you are apostasixing and therefore are damnable.

What is sufficient? And how do you justify your definition in light of the huge differences that exist within Christianity regarding just about every doctrinal issue?

Basically, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that there is just one right way to be Christian, and that that way can be discovered. How exactly can it be discovered? By reading the Bible? Which translation? And how? Literally, interpretively? By speaking to a priest? Which one? And how can you be certain that that priest is trustworthy in delivering the TRUE gospel?

Finally, you commit heresy by equating baptism to salvation. A believer can be saved through faith in Christ and not be baptised and still be saved.

I include that final statement to drive home the point that Christianity is NOT settled on these doctrinal issues, and so, it seems to me, that you will have a difficult time justifying your position without reverting to "my Christianity is right and yours is wrong."

[Molyneux]

In other words, you resolve the issue by having those being educated in the matters of the Evangelium more likely to be Virtuous than others, and that this increased probability outweighing the probability that those not educated in matters of the Evangelium rejecting babtism. That would solve the logical issue of the spreading of the Evangelium reducing one's chances.

However, to also eliminate the issue of the double standard that I raised earlier, the set "Educated + Virtuous + Unbabtised" must specifically be empty.

What I Probobly am about about to say next will not score me any brownie points with anyone on this board. If you Become sufficiently Educated in the Gospels and in the message of Christ, and do not become baptised in the name of the father, the son, and Holy Spirit, you by extension are rejecting the the New and everlsasting covanant with that The father Through the death of his son has made to the world. By doing so, technically you are apostasixing and therefore are damnable.

What about the old (and similarly everlasting) covenant between God and the Hebrews? Can an eternal compact be broken so easily by a supposedly infallible and virtuous Deity?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Theological debates being taken seriously have that delicious "totally insulated from reality" flavor to them.

[Darth Wong]

Theological debates being taken seriously have that delicious "totally insulated from reality" flavor to them.

They actually remind me of comicbook fan-whore debates. At least comic book fans realize on some level that it's not real.

[Molyneux]

Theological debates being taken seriously have that delicious "totally insulated from reality" flavor to them.

Eh, I'm not taking it seriously. I am, however, trying to show holes in the logic used in an argument.

[EmperorSolo51]

What about the old (and similarly everlasting) covenant between God and the Hebrews? Can an eternal compact be broken so easily by a supposedly infallible and virtuous Deity?

Not Broken, fulfilled. With the Birth of Christ, Death, and resurection, the Old Covanat made with Moses was fulfilled becuase the Coming Messiah as fortold by The Prophet Isaiah and a few others had arrived.

[Frank Hipper]

Forgot to capitalise "resurection", E. Solo.

[Molyneux]

What about the old (and similarly everlasting) covenant between God and the Hebrews? Can an eternal compact be broken so easily by a supposedly infallible and virtuous Deity?

Not Broken, fulfilled. With the Birth of Christ, Death, and resurection, the Old Covanat made with Moses was fulfilled becuase the Coming Messiah as fortold by The Prophet Isaiah and a few others had arrived.

The covenant between God and Abraham had no fulfilment conditions; it was supposedly an eternal bond between the Jewish people and God. The Messiah was not mentioned in it; the idea of a Messiah didn't arise until much later, after the establishment of Israel (and besides which, Jesus does not fit the criteria for being Messiah.)

If God is omniscient and all-powerful, why would He have to revise a compact like that?

[EmperorSolo51]

The covenant between God and Abraham had no fulfilment conditions; it was supposedly an eternal bond between the Jewish people and God. The Messiah was not mentioned in it; the idea of a Messiah didn't arise until much later, after the establishment of Israel (and besides which, Jesus does not fit the criteria for being Messiah.)

If God is omniscient and all-powerful, why would He have to revise a compact like that?

Question: What is the Criteria that makes Christ not the Messiah?

Let's not forget that Like all of Humanity, the Jews were still living in original Sin and Could not get into heaven because of that fact. The only way for mankind to get into heaven is through the birth and death of the messiah which would take away that original blot from mankind and open up the gates of heaven for all mankind.

[EmperorSolo51]

Edit: Could someone fix the quote Tags, please?

[General Zod]

Question: What is the Criteria that makes Christ not the Messiah?

This page has a few of the most basic reasons, though I'm sure that's easy enough for most Christians to rationalize away. More damning info can be found here:

#
Matthew

# The prophecy given in Is.7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. 1:23

# Matthew claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils the prophecy in Micah 5:2. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

* "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

* The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.

It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. 2:5-6

# "Out of Egypt I have called my son,"
Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse. 2:15

# Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18

Click me