Ah... BBC has never failed me so much

[PLAT]

Apologies to the OP for still digressing but I need to respond.

When we die we are either IMMEDIATELY damned (go to Hell) or IMMEDIATELY saved (Straight to Heaven or Purgatory first but both mean saved).
The Church DOES teach that the state of a person’s soul at death determines if they go to Hell or are saved.
The Church DOES teach that anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell.

Thank you. Just want to point out that the moment of death isn’t something we know i.e. e.g. someone who suicides may still have time to repent (not that anyone should kill oneself…)

The problem I find is that many people would regard sites like BBC as THE source of information. I don’t know whether that is the result of secular media fearing that the truth would move many to the real faith that it does not consider being honest an option (just a raw thought).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Am I the only one that thinks this article is generally quite fair to the Church and her teachings? Has anyone else even read the entire thing?

Significantly it abandoned the notion of the Catholic Church as the sole means of salvation. There were, it was acknowledged, other routes to heaven.

As has already been hashed, this isn’t strictly correct, but glancing over the first page of this thread obviously some Catholics are even confused about this. It’s quite true that the Church, before the council, generally taught a very strict, black-and-white understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus” in which anyone who wasn’t materially and objectively in communion with Rome prior to death was damned, and now the doctrine has been developed further to recognize the possibility of invincible ignorance.

The Catholic Church ordains only celibate men to the priesthood since Jesus was, it teaches, male and celibate. In the Protestant churches married and female clergy are the norm. Orthodoxy allows married men to become priests but not bishops.

Yes, this technically only applies to the Latin church… which makes up over 90% of the universal Catholic Church. So for all intents and purposes it is quite true that the “Catholic Church” has a celibate and continent priesthood while the “Orthodox Church” does not.

Moreover, the hierarchical nature of Catholicism sets it apart from other Christian churches. It is a pyramid with the Pope at the top, followed by cardinals (who have the right to elect a new pope on the death of the current incumbent), archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and laity.

There’s nothing factually incorrect in this statement. Our church is hierarchical and various bishops do exert more power and jurisdiction than other bishops, so mentioning that the Pope and Cardinals are bishops just like all other bishops would undermine the ultimate point that the Catholic Church is hierarchical and that this hierarchy sets it apart from other churches.

Traditionally clerics were seen as having a higher calling than the laity but, since the landmark Second Vatican Council, both laity and clergy have been regarded as jointly ‘the people of God’.

This could have been worded much better, but it’s still generally true. The role of the laity in the 20th century forward is unlike it’s been since the Apostolic Age. Before the council there were no “parish councils” or “liturgy boards” or any other organization of even slight authority composed of laity.

[Mary] occupies a special place interceding between God and His people.

This is factually true.

Sure, there’s always some nuance to be had in theology, but this isn’t a dissertation by Catholic theologians. It’s a generalized public info piece directed to those who likely don’t know all the intricacies of our faith.

PLAT: I’ve read the entire piece and cannot find any of those parts concerning atheism or evolution that you quoted.

 

[thistle]

Thank you. Just want to point out that the moment of death isn’t something we know i.e. e.g. someone who suicides may still have time to repent (not that anyone should kill oneself…)
The problem I find is that many people would regard sites like BBC as THE source of information. I don’t know whether that is the result of secular media fearing that the truth would move many to the real faith that it does not consider being honest an option (just a raw thought).

I agree.

 

[ConstantinePX]

The point of my argument, I suppose, is that noone REALLY knows, at the moment of Death, what REALLY happens. Some people who have had near death experiences give us some sort of idea, but we cant really be sure.

All we know, is that 3 official states of post-life were described in the bible, some in more detail then others.

Salvation/Paradise - Heaven, where the saints, prophets, kings, and those who have lived and accepted God come to.

The Abyss - Which we commonly refer to as ‘Hell’, which is more accurately translated in the Bible as an abyss or void, in Hebrew times to refer to a place devoid of Light or holiness. This is where the ‘rebels’ and ‘immoral’ and ‘rejects of truth’ are cast. In revelation it is more detailed, although in coded language, to refer to the Fiery Pit where the demons (fallen angels condemned to death, most notable the Archangel Lucifer) and those who side with the demons are cast in final judgment.

Purgatory- although I haven’t researched the exact translation of what this state is called in Greek and Hebrew sources, it is refereed to a place between eternal paradise and condemnation to the pit.

Some scholars would say that noone, as of yet, has been condemned to true death, that is, condemned to Hell, not mortal death of the flesh. All souls await in purgatory and will all be judged with all of mankind on the last day, alive or not. Some disagree and say that once we die, depending on our state at death, we descend into either 3.

The fact is, that we dont know for sure. We can speculate and draw conclusions based on magisterial research and teachings, but only one person has been to all 3 states and back, and he isnt due to come back until the end days, so until then our best bet is to stop worrying so much about death, and worry more about our life. Live a moral life in conformity to the scriptures, give praise and glory to the highest one, and do your best to live in conformity of the church doctrine, while receiving the sacraments along the way. This, is your best bet.
*
Honour all men. Love the brethren. Fear God. Honour Caesar, the Emperor. (1 Pet 2:17)*

 

[PLAT]

PLAT: I’ve read the entire piece and cannot find any of those parts concerning atheism or evolution that you quoted.

It’s in the Atheism section… sorry if I didn’t make it clear.

 

[Paxvobis]

Why is it that whenever the secular media covers the Church, they do it with generalization, obfuscation, and just down right errors? They can’t be that bad at reporting, can they? Seemingly small stories like this do un-calculated damage to the perception of the Church by non-Catholics and unsuspecting laity alike.

“Since Vatican II, both priests and people have been in the ‘people of God.’”

Oh, give me a break.

 

[PLAT]

Am I the only one that thinks this article is generally quite fair to the Church and her teachings? Has anyone else even read the entire thing?

As has already been hashed, this isn’t strictly correct, but glancing over the first page of this thread obviously some Catholics are even confused about this. It’s quite true that the Church, before the council, generally taught a very strict, black-and-white understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus” in which anyone who wasn’t materially and objectively in communion with Rome prior to death was damned, and now the doctrine has been developed further to recognize the possibility of invincible ignorance.

since opinion =/= teaching … still why shouldn’t BBC post something correct?

Yes, this technically only applies to the Latin church… which makes up over 90% of the universal Catholic Church. So for all intents and purposes it is quite true that the “Catholic Church” has a celibate and continent priesthood while the “Orthodox Church” does not.

Orthodox Church =/= Catholic Church

Eastern Catholics may have married priests, but they belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Point is, celibate priesthood is not a divine rule but merely a church rule.

There’s nothing factually incorrect in this statement. Our church is hierarchical and various bishops do exert more power and jurisdiction than other bishops, so mentioning that the Pope and Cardinals are bishops just like all other bishops would undermine the ultimate point that the Catholic Church is hierarchical and that this hierarchy sets it apart from other churches.

Those are administrative titles, indicated by tassels on their coats of arms. But its not the hierachy that sets it apart from other churches; it’s the sacrament of holy orders itself that does so.

This could have been worded much better, but it’s still generally true. The role of the laity in the 20th century forward is unlike it’s been since the Apostolic Age. Before the council there were no “parish councils” or “liturgy boards” or any other organization of even slight authority composed of laity.

See Paxvobis’ comment.

This is factually true.

And not other saints? As I said, Mary is just the best saint. The language used by BBC is very likely to mix up worship gestures and cultural gestures. Imagine Jesus is the boss and the saints are his secretaries. Ultimately only the boss has the power, but wouldn’t it be much easier to contact those secretaries, acknowledging that it is ultimately Jesus that makes things possible. BBC language seems to make Mary a sub-God.

Sure, there’s always some nuance to be had in theology, but this isn’t a dissertation by Catholic theologians. It’s a generalized public info piece directed to those who likely don’t know all the intricacies of our faith.

given that the article has many accuracy issues, I wonder why BBC shouldn’t improve.

---

Why is it that whenever the secular media covers the Church, they do it with generalization, obfuscation, and just down right errors? They can’t be that bad at reporting, can they? Seemingly small stories like this do un-calculated damage to the perception of the Church by non-Catholics and unsuspecting laity alike.

“Since Vatican II, both priests and people have been in the ‘people of God.’”

Oh, give me a break.

Because what they are presenting is supposedly true and not “distorted” by real catholics? I cant see how the article can be objective if it does not contain truth.